From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Tue Jan 2 01:19:52 2007 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:49:52 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] EU Council Video Streams for GNU/Linux: Illegal Message-ID: <459965E0.F77F539D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> The video stream page for the Council of the European Union: > http://ceuweb.belbone.be/index.php?lang=EN&sessionno= >From their FAQ: > http://ceuweb.belbone.be/faq.php?lang=EN The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union can be viewed on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms. We cannot support Linux in a legal way. So the answer is: No support for Linux. A petition (for EU folks; just homing in on 4,000 as I post): > http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/eu_streaming_service_for_everybody Platform independent solution to watch "Streaming Service of the Council of the European Union." Created by Stefan Esterer on December 29th, 2006 at 4:37 pm AST The "Streaming Service of the Council of the European Union" should be available for everybody and not only for Mac and MS Windows users. Change the service in that way, that also linux/bsd/.. user can use it. One Solution would be to use the free theora codec for the videos. Most Recent Signatures: 3978 Magnus Grander -- EU should support software/OS made in EU. Linux issuch thing. So support it and not rubbish americanbuggy crap. 3977 Yann Aker -- "We cannot support Linux" or "Wedo'nt want to support Linux" ???? 3976 Noims Rooney 3975 Jouni Kaukonen -- WMV is not the only option, you are supportingmicrosoft monopoly. Hire some competentIT-personel. Check out www.theora.org It's very sad, if you can't even do asimple thing like this right. 3974 Anton Lindström 3973 Alessandro Lombardi 3972 Matti Virkkunen -- I believe such government documents should beaccessible by everyone, not only people who canand are willing to pay for proprietary software. 3971 Andy Goossens 3970 rik fonteijn -- All information that concern all European Citizenshould be open for all of them. All of them meansnot only Windows & Mac 3969 T. Veltman 3968 Brice Dethier 3967 Cedric Lambert 3966 Rytis 3965 Carlos Gómez Espí -- La información procedente de nuestrasinstituciones no puede estar reservada sólo ausuarios de ciertos sistemas operativos no libres 3964 Jeroen van Bergen -- Limiting access to information is not exactly theway to build confidence. 3963 Frederik Himpe 3962 Daryl Oosten 3961 Daniel Löb 3960 Pablo Arias Vilaboa 3959 Jonathan Baker-Bates 3958 Paul te Bokkel -- Locking public information into a proprietaryformat is not about freedom, it's aboutincompetance. 3957 Per Losenborg 3956 Matthew Lamb 3955 Jürgen Zornig -- Fällt mir nichts dazu ein, einfach unglaublichwie unkompetent die EU Kollegen sind 3954 Roland Trique -- Les formats libres et ouverts existent. Lesmauvais prétextes n'ont pas lieud'être. From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Sat Jan 6 11:21:38 2007 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 05:51:38 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] On database rights Message-ID: A database may be protected by copyright and/or the database right. Irrespective of whether the database is entitled to full copyright protection it may be given the database right. This is an automatic right which protects the investment (i.e. time, money and energy) that goes into obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database. A database is defined as a collection of independent works, data or other materials which: (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way; and (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means. Examples of databases include telephone directories and timetables. For the database rights to apply, the database must be original and the result of substantial investment (financial, technical or otherwise). Database right is in many ways very similar to copyright so that, for example, there is no registration for database right – it is an automatic right and commences as soon as the material that can be protected exists in a recorded form. Ownership of database rights is determined in the same way as copyright ownership. As with copyright, database rights can be sold or licensed. The database right can apply to both paper and electronic databases. However, there are some differences between database right and copyright: The term of protection for database right is much shorter. Database right lasts for 15 years from making but, if published during this time, then the term is 15 years from publication. It is possible that the right will last in perpetuity as the 15 year period of protection rolls forward if substantial changes and updates or other sufficient investments are made to the database in this period. The activities that a database right holder can control, and which are, therefore, infringed if undertaken without the right holder’s permission, are a bit different. Database right concerns control over the extraction and re-utilisation of the contents of the database. This is outlined in general terms below. Database right can be infringed by copying the contents of a database and rearranging them. If a database qualifies for protection then the owner of the database right can enforce that right against those who extract or reutilise a substantial part of the database, or alternatively repeatedly extract and re-utilise an insubstantial part. Database rights can also be enforced against anyone who makes the contents of the database available to the public without permission. As with copyright, if a database right is infringed a range of civil remedies are available to the database right holder including injunctions, an account of profits, damages and delivering up of goods. It is important to remember that many databases are a collection of copyright works, such as an on-line database of poetry from the last fifty years where each poem will be protected by copyright. People compiling databases need to make sure that they have permission from the copyright owners for use of their material and people using databases need to be aware of the rights of copyright owners as well as database right owners. Where a database is delivered on- line, it is usual for a contractual agreement to exist between the database owner and the user setting out what use is permitted, and this will generally take precedence over any exceptions in the law. Protection equivalent to database rights exists in other countries in the European Economic Area but not necessarily in the rest of the world, although all members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) do have an obligation to provide copyright protection for some databases. ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ E-Mails von jedem Internet-PC weltweit verschicken - einfach, sicher und kostenlos! - http://www.msn.de/email Kostenlos anmelden! From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 13:39:16 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 08:09:16 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] On database rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908adbd0701060009p577e984dieaf3cabbc24fd15d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anirban, Thank you for forwarding us a copy of section 2.8.2 of the Caret manual on Intellectual Property and Copyright in the Digital Environment, also available from http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/copyright/Page92.html Can you please direct us to the LAW of database protection in India. Which sections of the copyright act currently confer the kind of protection that you are speaking about in so definite terms? Can you supply us with a link to the Indian Database Act? "Irrespective of whether the database is entitled to full copyright protection it may be given the database right." HUH? Prashant On 1/6/07, ANIRBAN MAZUMDER wrote: > > > > > A database may be protected by copyright and/or the database right. > Irrespective of whether the database is entitled to full copyright > protection it may be given the database right. This is an automatic right > which protects the investment (i.e. time, money and energy) that goes into > obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database. > > A database is defined as a collection of independent works, data or other > materials which: (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way; and > (b) > are individually accessible by electronic or other means. Examples of > databases include telephone directories and timetables. > For the database rights to apply, the database must be original and the > result of substantial investment (financial, technical or otherwise). > > Database right is in many ways very similar to copyright so that, for > example, there is no registration for database right – it is an automatic > right and commences as soon as the material that can be protected exists > in > a recorded form. Ownership of database rights is determined in the same > way > as copyright ownership. As with copyright, database rights can be sold or > licensed. The database right can apply to both paper and electronic > databases. > > > However, there are some differences between database right and copyright: > > The term of protection for database right is much shorter. Database right > lasts for 15 years from making but, if published during this time, then > the > term is 15 years from publication. It is possible that the right will > last > in perpetuity as the 15 year period of protection rolls forward if > substantial changes and updates or other sufficient investments are made > to > the database in this period. > The activities that a database right holder can control, and which are, > therefore, infringed if undertaken without the right holder's permission, > are a bit different. Database right concerns control over the extraction > and > re-utilisation of the contents of the database. This is outlined in > general > terms below. > > Database right can be infringed by copying the contents of a database and > rearranging them. If a database qualifies for protection then the owner > of > the database right can enforce that right against those who extract or > reutilise a substantial part of the database, or alternatively repeatedly > extract and re-utilise an insubstantial part. Database rights can also be > enforced against anyone who makes the contents of the database available > to > the public without permission. As with copyright, if a database right is > infringed a range of civil remedies are available to the database right > holder including injunctions, an account of profits, damages and > delivering > up of goods. > > It is important to remember that many databases are a collection of > copyright works, such as an on-line database of poetry from the last fifty > years where each poem will be protected by copyright. People compiling > databases need to make sure that they have permission from the copyright > owners for use of their material and people using databases need to be > aware > of the rights of copyright owners as well as database right owners. Where > a > database is delivered on- line, it is usual for a contractual agreement to > exist between the database owner and the user setting out what use is > permitted, and this will generally take precedence over any exceptions in > the law. > Protection equivalent to database rights exists in other countries in the > European Economic Area but not necessarily in the rest of the world, > although all members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) do have an > obligation to provide copyright protection for some databases. > > > > > > ANIRBAN MAZUMDER > LECTURER IN LAW > NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES > NUJS BHAVAN > 12 LB BLOCK > SALT LAKE CITY > CALCUTTA - 700098 > INDIA > PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) > 23357379 (O) > 25216734 ( R) > FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 > > _________________________________________________________________ > E-Mails von jedem Internet-PC weltweit verschicken - einfach, sicher und > kostenlos! - http://www.msn.de/email Kostenlos anmelden! > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070106/69d854ee/attachment.html From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Jan 6 20:48:10 2007 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] How to Get a Refund of Your Windows Tax Message-ID: <459FBDB2.FB7D6497@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://community.linux.com/print.pl?sid=07/01/03/227237 Title How to get a Windows tax refund Date 2007.01.05 13:02 Author StoneLion If you buy a computer, you often pay for Microsoft Windows even if you didn't ask for it and aren't going to use it. This article shows you how to return your unused Windows license and get your money back, freeing yourself from the Windows tax. I recently purchased a new laptop computer from Dell. As a GNU/Linux user and believer in Free Software, I knew from the start that I wasn't going to run Microsoft Windows. Unfortunately, Dell didn't offer this laptop with Ubuntu or a no-OS option, so I tried getting my Windows refund from Dell after the purchase. After working with customer service, I received a refund of $52.50. In the course of getting my refund, I found some techniques worked better than others. By knowing what works, you may be able to get your refund quickly and easily. Be prepared and set realistic expectations Before you go down this route, be prepared. Getting your Windows refund may take several hours of work, after which you'll get a small amount of money -- nowhere near the full retail price of Windows on the store shelf. Though your win may be more of a victory for principle than your pocketbook, it is possible to win, and you'll have made an important stand. Getting a Windows refund only works if your computer is new. If you've booted into Windows once and hit the Accept button at the end of the Microsoft EULA, you're disqualified. Ideally you'll plan on getting your Windows refund before placing your order with the vendor. If you are ordering a new machine, first call the vendor to see if they offer a no-OS option. If they do, use it. If the machine does not come without an installed OS and you have to buy Windows, purchase the lowest-end Windows that you can. In my case, that meant buying the computer with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition. When your computer arrives, document each step of unloading your computer. I took a tip from UK reporter Dave Mitchell, who received a Windows refund from Dell, and took pictures of myself at each step of the process, including opening the box and each and every page of the Microsoft EULA. I zoomed in on the relevant section about returning the license to the vendor. I also zoomed in on the radio button which says "Do Not Accept" and showed myself rejecting the license. This will add some time to your initial computer use, but is proof that you read and rejected the license. Before you make the call, have everything you need in front of you. You should have all the details of your order, including the order number, date purchased, and even your credit card number. You should have the computer's serial number and, in the case of Dell, its Express Service Code. Later in the process, you may need your Windows Certificate of Authenticity (COA) key. It's on the holographic label usually found on the bottom of the laptop. You might find it easier to just have the laptop itself handy. You'll also want to have the text of the EULA ready. You probably don't need the entire thing, but the specific wording about returning Windows to the vendor may become key. Lastly, you're going to want to have a pen and paper ready. If your phone is wireless, you'll want to be sure it's fully charged, and keep a beverage handy -- you could be on the phone a while. Preparing for the call By this time in the process, you're probably itching to get on the phone, get on your soapbox, and get your refund. Resist the urge. Remember that you're looking to exercise a legal right. You're not going to change anyone's mind about Free Software, and any extra time you spend in the process only takes you further from your goal. Be polite. A customer service representative is used to handling dozens of issues a day, but your issue is going to be outside the norm. The person on the other end of the phone is your representation on the company's side, so you want to keep him or her as happy as possible. Don't get angry, don't yell, don't be rude. If things become tense, disarm the situation with kindness, and, if it's appropriate, a joke. You will be put on hold. Dell is fairly good about not leaving folks on hold (especially business customers), but I was put on hold a number of times. There's nothing you can do about it, so just be polite and accept it. What you're asking for is so unusual that they'll probably need to call supervisors. Let them. Expect excuses. They're going to look for ways not to give you the refund. After all, they've never heard of this, so it must be impossible. My first customer service rep said that he couldn't refund my license because I wasn't charged for it. If you hear something like this, don't be discouraged, and don't take it as the final word. I'll tell you how to counter these sorts of arguments in a moment. Don't argue, escalate. If you find you're not getting anywhere with your customer service representative, or you're going over the same point several times, it's time to escalate. Remember our previous guideline of not being rude. You can ask to be transferred without making it into a confrontation. Be sympathetic: "I see that you're trying your best, but that you're not able to do anything else for me. Would it be possible for you to transfer me to someone else?" Be persistent. You'll probably have to speak with several people, repeat yourself, and hear lots of excuses about how you're not entitled to what you're asking for. You're in the right, and as long as you're in the pipeline, you're making progress. When you're not making any more progress, escalate. Don't settle. At several points in my communications with customer service, I was offered coupons, even in excess of what I was asking for, but coupons aren't money. Politely explain that you're looking for a refund in cash (or credit back to your credit card). Use the precedents. If you're in the UK, you can mention reporter Dave Mitchell as someone whose already received a Windows refund. If you're in the US, you can use me. If they've given refunds to the two of us, why not you? During the call, you may find that the customer service representative will come back to you with several excuses about why you're not entitled to your refund. I've compiled a list of them, some which I heard and others which I didn't, and good responses to them. "You can't return the operating system because the computer can't work without it." That's the easiest argument to counter. Explain that you run GNU/Linux (or FreeBSD, or whatever operating system you've replaced Windows with). "You didn't pay anything for Windows." Since the price of Windows was included in the price of the computer, they may try to argue that you didn't pay anything for it. This one is easy to debunk. Windows costs money -- everyone knows that. Once you establish that Windows does indeed cost money (and you can't get it for free) then the only remaining issue is how much you paid. Since Microsoft contracts out with hardware vendors, there's no actual way to know how much Windows costs a given retailer. This being the case, I was asking for the price of an OEM copy of Windows XP Home SP2 that I found on Newegg, which was $89. In the end they gave me $52.50. I don't know if this is really how much Windows costs, but it's a non-trivial amount and I can well imagine that one of the world's largest computer makers can get a good deal on Windows licenses from Microsoft. "You bought the bundle." They may tell your purchase was a bundle, that Windows came on the computer as a packaged set and you can't return one without the other. What you have on your side to counter this is the license itself, which says that you may choose to not accept the license and return it to the vendor. No matter what they say regarding a bundle, the legal wording of the license is clear. I heard the B word several times, and each time I explained the terms of the license to them, with the license wording at hand in case I needed to quote it verbatim. If the customer representative tries to cut the conversation short saying it's a bundle, stay polite, but explain that the license is quite clear and that you're just going by the legal wording and exercising your right to return the operating system. "How about a coupon?" I was offered coupons several times. I'm guessing that coupons are easy to give to customers as a way to keep them happy. While you're rejecting the coupons, realize that this is a small victory. All you have to do at that point is ask for cash. "You need to return the CD." As a condition to getting my Windows refund, I was required to give the COA key to the customer representative and return the Windows CD itself. Dell was kind enough to pay for shipping of the CD, so all I had to pay for was the envelope. Your vendor may not be as generous regarding the shipping, but by this time, you've won. You win - or not If you're not working with Dell, you may not have the same success. In this case, you might need to take another tack. Small claims court may be an option. You file paperwork with the court, pay a small fee, and show up in court with all your documentation. You'll need to make your case quickly and succinctly. You may also want to contact the Better Business Bureau for help. Many reputable businesses take the BBB seriously and may be more willing to work with you after it has contacted them. In any case, you'll be spending time and money to resolve the issue, but so will the vendor, so they're likely to look for an amiable solution as quickly as possible. To summarize: * You're only eligible for a refund on new computers * Document everything * Be prepared * Be polite * Be persistent * Be gracious If you follow these guidelines, you're likely to come out with a working computer without the Windows tax. I would be remiss if I did not offer a special thank you to Dell. Despite my initial difficulties, Dell eventually came through. After hearing stories on the Net about folks having to bring their vendor to small claims court, I'm happy I picked a company with reasonable policies and people. I especially want to thank Seema, the floor manager who worked with me on my case and offered me the refund. Links 1. "Dave Mitchell" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6144782.stm 2. "Small claims court may be an option" - http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7040 From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sun Jan 7 08:19:57 2007 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Manon's Blog of the WIPO XCast Meeting On Wednesday Message-ID: <45A05FD5.8A65760F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Next stop: WIPO SCCR this January 17-19. Note that it appears that the Treaty has been beaten back to a signal protection approach. -- Seth) > http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/2007/01/how-to-make-omelette-without-breaking.html How to make an omelette without breaking an egg or a new approach to WIPO casters treaty? by Manon Ress Wednesday, January 03, 2007 At the end of an exciting 2 hour meeting at PTO today , Mike Keplinger (who worked for about 40 years for PTO and now works at WIPO) made the following statement: Mike Keplinger: At the General Assembly, clearly it was decided that without consensus there would be no diplomatic conference. The goal is to re direct to signal protection. This is not an easy task. We have ground rules. We have art. 20 [he meant art. 22] of Rome. So, there has to be some components of Rome. It does not say it needs to go beyond Rome. But it opens ways. It's unfortunate that webcast has been taken out. We'll work on that probably in the near future. So now we have to have a narrow treaty with consideration for Rome and for signal protection. END OF (my favorite) QUOTE You can read all my notes --sorry, I'm no typist -it's a bad summary most of the time -- but maybe it can help understand where we are 2 weeks before the next WIPO committee meeting SCCR S1 Jan 17-19, 2007? List of participants is at the end (if you were there and I did not catch your name and affiliation, let me know). Manon Wipo broadcasting treaty 03/01/07 summary of my notes. The participants (a list is at the end) were more eloquent (or insulting or funny) than my notes can express. 1pm-3pm USPTO Alexandria Virginia. Over 40 (?) people in the room and many on the phone. Ann Chaitowitz (PTO) : No recording allowed but free to take notes. Introduction of new members of the US delegation: Paul Salmon (PTO) and David Carson (Copyright Office). Also present everyone knows Marla Poor (Copyright office) [ manon: and Lois Boland, PTO but not at the table). [Reads summary/quote of decision in Sept 06 at the WIPO general Assembly]. It was decided to have two more Standing committees on Copyright and related Rights, one in January and one in June to work on oustanding isues. The GA also stated need to have a signal based approach. Today's meeting is to hear your views, what are provisions that you found problematic and what would you support. 2 minutes to make your first statement and then we'll go around again. Ben Ivens: We're opposed to art 2 to 4 [cultural diversity protection] that are inappropriate because they relate to content, they are not in the WPPT which is the model for this treaty. They are other reasons why 2 and 4 are major stumbling bloc. Maybe we could have them in preamble as maybe a compromise art 5: definitions have gaps since theyre not covering program suppliers art 7 re beneficiaries, no to variant H art 8 no to alt J art 9 no to possible reservation because that is the gut of the treaty art. 15 we want exclusive rights and not just rights to prohibit but maybe we could have hybrid rights. Re the Limitations and exceptions, we're opposed to have mandatory L&E because that would be against our national interest. The treaty should not create a precedent, it will be used against the national interest. For the term: we support 50 years but we're flexible Re TPMs, art 19 and 20 are important to us You see last report to the government re importance for private party to protect against piracy. Erica Radler We endorse Ben Ivens's comments. And for us, re 2 to 4 there are other reasons why there not appropriate in an IP treaty. They would create a precedent of and odd clause. For retransmission "by any means" we believe that language should stay in. It must include the internet. Example of Icrave tv. And TPM is a key provision. The current draft is not equivalent of WPPT. Re definitions and pre broadcastcast: it currently causes problem with affiliates and suppliers. One another point is the meaning of signal approach. it is not clear (giggles). Clearly we would not support that. Jim Burger we're opposed to exclusive rights approach. That was elimnated in Geneva. We would for 9 to 16 focus on theft. There's no need for a new treaty. TRIPS is enough. Many companies do not think it is needed, for others like in the Caribbean case, it can be dealt with signal theft. This treaty should not go into people's living room. More exclusive rights would not help and are not needed. Sherwin Siy I do not want to repeat what Jim Burger said but add that this is not a copyright treaty but a related right treaty. Adding a new intellectual property right will add a new layer wih a new ownership. It will block flow of information even when the copyright owners agree. Would be problematic for fair use and public domain works. The US law has an anti signal theft approach and has shown that it is an effective approach. Also mandatory limitations and exceptionsare part of US national interest. We have fair use, we have first sale. And these new rights would not account for that. Regarding the example of icrave tv, and other pirate station, they are brought down very quickly. So it is an effective regime. James Love: Part of problem of the treaty, when it was firt proposed, it was like a Rome+ model. The idea was to take old treaty and put the internet and tpm etc in it, you get more extensive rights than in Rome. That was it until a few years ago. With where technology is going, and a lot of criticism regarding the new paradigm, the US tried to find exit strategy. And the conversation gravitated to signal protection. The rhetoric was all about piracy. and what are the piracy problems, but there's no text on the table. The complicated text of the chir, the text on the table is full of poison pills. Then, the US had a victory at the GA and managed to pull out of the fire. But what is the follow up of that? How do you get to signal protection. Some country has to put a proposal on the table. It has to be a streamlined. As in the development agenda, there are strong support for L&E but people could back off, if you get rid of exclusive rights. If not cultural diversity will be there at the diplomatic conference. My question: is the us prepared to work and table as a discussion draft a signal protection paradigm? if not, you're not serious. It has to be tabled by a government and by the US Gov. It has the support of several countries. But it requires leadership. Kevin Rupy: Representing the interest of telecom indust. from big to small. They all have in common that they offer internet services and program or able distribution. We have yet to hear anything from them about the need for this teaty. However, based on WIPO's decision to move with signal theft approach, we believe it is the best approach. Obvioulsy there are many issues, scope, and others, but we believe signal protection from any alledged harm is best. At the previous roundtable, we all agreed, piracy is bad and there is a need to address that but in narrow way and without granting of exclusive rights. We're also concern about TPMs, it would be a hurdle for consumers to use works in their home and we are also concerns re intermediary issues. We stand prepared to work with US delegation. Fritz Hattaway We support the treaty for broadcasters, cablecasters and netcasters. We support the US proposed text. The treaty should focus more on signal and less on exclusive rights but we recognize that most developed world already provide exclusive rights and there's been no harm, it's overblown. One thing that is essential: to protect against retransmission over the internet. Otherwise the treaty is meaningless. But first do no harm to existing treaty. mentions of access to knowlegde and diversity could have adverse effet on existing treaties and should be excised from the text before going to diplomatic conference. We're concerned about TPM. It should be just like the WPPT, thats' where we are. Jonathan Band: It makes sense to have a signal approach but the definition is important. Whatever the approach, it is important to focus on limitations and exceptions. All L& E should be carried forward if we're talking about copyright-like infringemnt (and not about signal). Sarah Deutch I'd like to expand on the "do no harm" to copyright owners and others. What about new devices and services. Now all is moving signals, to your phone or other devices etc. There are serious concerns to attached new licenses etc. And yes, the European countries haveRomebut they also have a lot of regulations, re anti trust etc. We have a different system. Finally, the liability issue is important: for retrasnmitting signal, we would need to go to each country to get a carve out in each country if it is not in the treaty. Gwen Hinze In light of the GA decision, the current draft is not focus on signal protection. Right now it is not consistent. Also I would like to make 2 points: on the scope of rights. The new layer especially without mandatory L and E would endangered consumers, also the broad scope would stifle innovation. My second point is in re of tpms: if we are talking about signal, it is already in US law. If it is a post transmission control then it is in consumer's living room, and like the broadcast flag it will be with a technical mandate. Finally, and I have been involved for some times, I have not heard about need for a new intellectual property right but only for signal protection. We need a more targeted treaty and implementation. Halpern, representing Internet coalition, our membership is concerned about liability issue. and interested mostly about what is the US strategy to protect against creation of liability. For internet service providers, their scope of responsibilities in this treaty is a concern. We need limitations on liability. Patrice Lyon I am concerned about definition. In internet environment, every thing can be seen as internet transmission, and it is in digital form by definition. Many device (handheld even) will be receiving signal, so will it be view as a computer environment? If it is excluded, the basis of the treaty would not be useful. Doug with Intel If we must have any treaty, it should be narrow and apply to signal. The industry is on the record: if it is not clearly signal, we're opposed. There are issue of liability, if new rights, it will be expensive. Also, there's need for consumers to have access to content protected and use of different devices, and the current treaty construct is antithecal. Neil Jackson NPR Our interest is narrow. But as broadcasters, we have thelargest audience within the US. We spend a lot of time and money all over the world to gather news from the air from casters etc. We are members NAB, NABA and EBU and we're oposed to this unless fair use is in. This this treaty must leave room for fair use rights. >From our limited perspective as broadcasters, we think it is a Human rights issue to have access, you have to protect our narrow rights. Gigi Sohn I would add that the treaty is inconsistent with US law. We're not member of Rome. So, we would go from 0 year term to 50 years! Re L & E, it is shocking to hear the opposition. Re the TPMS. I have the scars, we do not have tpms. I was glad to hear Fritx it should be like in the US. Finally, people who do not support more exclusive rights do not have to prove why, the US has the most robust broadcasting industry.It is if you proposing new regulations that the burden is on you. Lee Knife: the impetus of the treaty was to move to the future so it should include the internet but a lot of resistance to webcating or netcasting comes from the fact that the treaty it s too braod. So we would like a narrow theft approach that would include netcasting. Marshall Eunbanks (free tv) For small webcasters, what we do is precarious. And liability is a concern. If this is not copyright infringement it should be about signal theft. Thinking of the little guy transmitting public domain works. And as a citizen, I am opposed to anything that infringes on fair use. Eddan Katz For us, it's like a database rights. We have been studying the treaty and the balance and robustness of coyright and L and E. Necessary for the system. Matt S. (CCIA) We share concerns re intermediary liability and want to add to definitional issues. The mandate from the GA is different. it is different from exclusive rights. And we do not solve anyhting if we just rename it. Neil T. (RIAA) We support a signal based approach. I also want to briefly respond. I hear the mantra: if it is not copyright infringement it should be signal. But if this is the case it is irrelevant. It has to have value added. Copyright infringement is not the end of this exercise. Second Round at 2:05 James Love: Important question: who are the beneficiaries? Rome did not cover cable. Now with satellite and cable, there are new beneficiaries. Is it for the people like comcast who come to your house with cable? Or is it like New corps showing FX that would be the beneficiaries? It seems that the cablecasters are the big beneficiaries and we never heard of them in any meeting!? This new layer is anti consumer and anti innovation. The cost of broadcasting is falling every day and with so much new technology, it not a good time tor regulate with a 1996 approach. We should have a minimalist approach. To follow on Neil, if you get a bona fide copy by paying for cable and you get the colbert report it is permitted use, but not if you hack into cable then that should be addressed by the treaty. There is a difference between permitted use and hacking. Can the US delegation clarify who are the new beneficiaries? Are we talking about both comcast and FX (or TBS)? Both would be beneficiaries according to newscorp because both are cablecasters. We can see the creation of thickets of rights. Well, cable is not part of Rome and it is illegal in the US. Here we have time warner and vivendi and copyright owners will lose from aggregators. I'm surprised why the recording industry would support people who package their works. Conflicts. Neil T There's a little misunderstanding. This treaty should deal with signal. When content is fixed, the treaty should stop there. And our members do not own network. Our agenda is not that different from yours. We agree about distinction between content and signal. As a consequnce, we're first to say abandon economic rights and go for signal protection approach. And we also want to address public interest concerns. We could create a perfect world where broadcaster would have protection of their signal only. Trish AFTRA (on the phone) The performers (including) aftra all along supported signal protection and do not support more rights. We support the RIAA. Jim Burger I would like to thank NPR for statement. And then my next point is Europe. There's a shift now. Broadcasters have problems in Europe now. It should be irrelevant. Our own broadcasters are strong. But it's interesting that the EU which has so much problems (see the huge report) is a model. Erika R On content portection. All broadcasting content gets protection. But news and sports, do not get protection in other countries. The broadcaster do not oppose L and E that already exist. But it needs to be consistent with other treaties. As with content. What is the advantage of having different l&E. Manon Ress: Just a clarification on the news and sports are not protected. Where are they not protected? I checked with experts such a Bernt Hugenholz and he said that they are protected under copyright everywhere. Maybe Erika can tell me in what country it is not protected? or the US delegation. Ben Ivens: Are you going to let them...can we we have some .....she sitting next to him, she should consult with Tom Rivers. Regarding what Sarah said. Imagination runs wild, truly. She also says, signal are everywhere which is why we need protection. In US law we have communication law. It's bad that Gigi left. It is an economic right and it has no limitations and exceptions. it's part of us law since 92. What she said is flat out not true. And TRIPS is not adequate. icrave is not the only example there are manyother examples....I can provide a list...there are many many examples. Now the notion that terrible things will occur. Back in 98, in a WIPO report, we have 50 coutnrie with exclusive rights and nothing terrible happened in those countries. And if the notion is contrary to US laws then there will be changes, it is not against US laws, it is different...and again Gigi re 0 term to 50, we said we can negotiate. And to Neil (NPR): be careful to get what you ask for. Think of china, ways they treat journalists, they will ask for their own L&E if we want fair use. Re multinationals, the US was late in the process and Jamie is talking about phenomenal powers.... Performing rights org? I would like to ask a question. Exclusion of webcasting why? Ann C: We would need 2 hours. But no, we stood alone out there. The lone country in favor of inclusion of webcasting. so we agreed to compromise. Patrice Lyon I am struggling with the concept of broadcast. And there's been idea of importing fair use. But what about if it is encrypted? Leaving that aside, what does it mean to be a broadcaster. A broadcaster could also help other services, like medical record, or you do not want fair use of a bank account? Jonathan Band: Re "if not copyright infringment, it should be a signal theft" we do not need a mandatory list of exeptions. Right now in 17, instead of "may" should be "shall". There should be parity and mandatory is better than optional. Erika: I need clarification. "shall" as same in the country re content? Sarah D My imagination did not run wild. There are competitions and difficulties getting access in some markets. It would be foolish to think that no one will use these new rights we create, they'll want to use them. Neil T.: If we suggest "shall" same as for copyright would they be relevant? We should hold off until we know the scope? Doug (Intel: We've been fighting tooth and nail in strident opposition to build home network. Listening to the comments, the consensus is signal. And we'd opposed anything going beyond that. Sherwin: when you [talking to ben ivens] say propriety right for broadcasters exist, but it is a very limited exclusive rights. It is not exercisable againt copyright owners or users. It is an exageration to say on par with other ipr. Bradley: Maybe we have consensus on signal and then it is the beginning only. Where does it start and end. Whether you call it a signal or right. Eddan: Important historially that retransmission consent, if nay modification of the signal liability rules. the transmission consent shows need to comrpomise and narrow the scope James Love re L and E. the more rights, the more L&E, they are join at the hip. The more you exclude exclusive rights, less need for L&E...if it is only signal there can be zero L&E. For example, there's no fair use of cable service. If you push for more economic rights, you will have more L and E. if you do not want to see L and E you stop at signal. Ann: The meeting is over (2:46). So, the US does not see 15.2 as a basis for diplomatic conference and we'll work proactively, and also I want to intoduce somone you all know from years at PTO Mike keplinger... Mike Keplinger: At the General Assembly, clearly it was decided that without consensus there would be no diplomtic conference. The goal is to re direct to signal protection. This is not an easy task. We have ground rules. We have art 20 of Rome. So there has to be some components of Rome. It does not say it needs to go beyond Rome. But it opens way. It's unfortunate that webcast has been taken out. We'll work on that probably in near future. So now we have to have a narrow treaty with consideration for Rome and signal protection. Participants: Proponents of exclusive rights approach and NO mandatory limitations and exceptions: Ben Ivens NAB Erica Redler Broadcasting organization (not sure which one?) Fritz Attaway Motion Picture Association of America and the others: Jonathan Band Library Copyright Alliance Sarah B. Deutsch Verizon Communications Neil Turkewitz Recording Industry Association of America Sherwin Siy Public Knowledge Bradley Silver Time Warner James Love Consumer Project on Technology Manon Ress Consumer Project on Technology Lee Knife Digital Media Association Gigi Sohn Public Knowledge Jim Burger Counsel to Intel, Hewett-Packard, TiVo and Dell Matt Schruers Computer & Communications Industry Association Doug Comer Intel Corporation Marilyn Cade AT&T David Nimmer David Nimmer (on the phone) Ann Wright Consumers Union (on the phone) Gwen Hinze The Electronic Frontier Foundation (on the phone) James Cannings Our Own Performance Society Neal Jackson National Public Radio NJackson at npr.org Eddan Katz Yale Information Society Project Marshall Eubanks Eubanks Family LLC (AmericaFree TV) Kevin Rupy US Telecom Patrice Lyons Observer Did not talk: Thiru Balasubramaniam CPtech Geneva (on the phone) Robin Gross, IP Justice (on the phone) Nick Ashton-Hart (on the phone) Marcia Hofmann EFF Nancy Kremers Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Philip Hochberg Various programmers and packagers of delayed sports telecasts Kevin Goldberg Fletcher, Heald &Hildreth, P.L.C. Thomas Ostertag Various programmers and packagers of delayed sports telecasts Michael Mellis Various programmers and packagers of delayed sports telecasts Robert Garrett Various programmers and packagers of delayed sports telecasts John Aquino Intellectual Property Watch Tom Barger (on the phone) Ryan Triplette Judiciary Committee posted by Manon Ress at 3:27 PM 0 comments From hbs.law at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 16:34:02 2007 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:34:02 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Can You Really Trust Monsanto? -- How They Corrupted Science Message-ID: <8b60429e0701080304h759a2d80y8e807a0c87e9f136@mail.gmail.com> Hi Pretty interesting read about corporates influencing science. Case in point is Monsanto. The question that comes to my mind is who will do the "true" science? Which means fair, objective, balanced and accurate opinions at a given time? It is interesting that activists themselves don't do any science, and if they did lot of it would be rhetroric they generate. In short, science by activists would be as suspect as science by corporates. So then who is going to do it? Government? Regards, Hasit Full article has neat cartoons: http://www.mercola.com/articles/2006/dec/monsanto Can You Really Trust Monsanto? -- How They Corrupted Science Sir Richard Doll was a world-renowned British cancer specialist who passed away last year. It was Sir Richard who is noted for making the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It turns out that he was being paid for 20 years as a consultant by Monsanto, while not revealing this fact in his ''independent'' reports. Monsanto was a producer of the horrific Agent Orange, the lethal herbicide and defoliant used by American forces in the Vietnam War for ten years up to 1971. It contained dioxins that have caused great damage to health among the civilians and troops exposed to it. As a result, lawsuits were filed against producers like Monsanto and Dow Chemical with American veterans winning $180 million in compensation in 1984. Australian, New Zealand and Korean victims also won compensation, though not the Vietnamese. [image: Monsanto Land Agent Orange PCB Dioxin]Studies indicate the increased risks of cancer and genetic defects from exposure to dioxin, but Sir Richard Doll wrote to a Royal Australian commission investigating the Monsanto Agent Orange to say there was no evidence that this was the case. He did not mention that every day he was pocketing $1,500 from Monsanto. Documents revealed this month also show that Sir Richard Doll was paid $15,000 by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemical, another Agent Orange producer, and the British chemical giant ICI. For this money, he produced an ''independent'' review that largely dismissed claims that the vinyl chloride used in plastics could be linked to cancers, apart of those of the liver. The World Health Organization challenges that assertion, but it suited his paymasters and they used his report to defend the chemical's safety for a decade. What we have here is one small glimpse at the corruption and conflicts of interest that consume much of what is bravely called ''science.'' Of course, as in all these professions, even politics, there are some genuine people trying to do what they believe to be right with ethics and honesty. But wherever dollar signs appear ethics have a fight on their hands. The more ''renowned'' the scientist, the bigger the check -- and the more effective the contribution to misleading public perception. [image: Monsanto Comic]The idea, most of the time, is not even to ''win'' the argument over the effect of a chemical or GM food or whatever because they know that on facts and common sense the odds are stacked against them. The arguments are also often complex and full of science-speak and neither position is able to land the deciding punch until the effects have become clear in the consequences for public health. Their primary goal is to throw confusion and conflict into the ''debate,'' to muddy the waters and prevent any clear presentation of the facts. This is done by finding ''scientists'' who are willing to put the argument that suits the corporations and, although it may have no validity, it dilutes the clarity there would otherwise be. In this way, warnings about the potential dangers of a food additive, sugar substitute and all these other chemical concoctions are ignored for years, even decades, before unmistakable heath effects become obvious. By then, it's too late for those who have suffered or died. The corporations use their on-the-take ''scientists'' to counter the warnings and persuade government agencies that there is no ''proof'' that a substance will be harmful. In any sane society, a company would have to provide unquestionable proof that the chemical was not harmful before entering public use and this would clip the power of the chemical giants overnight. But it is not just the ''scientists'' who are for sale, so are many within the very government agencies that are supposed to police the corporations. Monsanto is the producer of the sugar substitute, aspartame, which was manipulated through the Food and Drug Administration ''safety checks'' by Donald Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He used his connections in the Reagan-Bush administration after 1979 to ensure that aspartame, a brain cell-scrambler, entered public use despite the independent research challenging its safety. Monsanto is also the corporation behind genetically-modified food and they have been using the same techniques to impose this upon the world. Its propaganda machine counters the evidence about the dangers with a host of handsomely-paid white coats turning simple debate into incomprehensible complexity that the public and politicians cannot understand. They also use the media and their song-sheet singers in government to target those genuine scientists acting in the public interest. [image: Dr. Arpad Pusztai]Dr. Arpad Pusztai was considered the world expert on GM foods with more than 270 published studies relating to the subject. He was working at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, when he was interviewed for a World in Action television documentary on August 10, 1998. What he said was to destroy his career because of the reaction of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, puppets of Monsanto and the biotech industry. Dr. Pusztai told the program that rats fed on certain GM potatoes had suffered stunted growth, damage to the immune system, and their liver, heart and other organs got smaller. He later said this was also the case with the brain, but he had not mentioned that in the TV interview to avoid being ''alarmist.'' However, he did say this of GM food: "If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat it.'' On the evening the interview was broadcast, Dr. Pusztai was congratulated for his contribution by Professor Philip James, director of the Rowett Institute. The next morning, the institute issued a press release highlighting that a ''range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr. Pusztai's concerns.'' Forty eight hours later, he was suspended and ordered to hand over all his data. His research team was disbanded and he was threatened with legal action if he spoke to anyone on the subject. Even his personal assistant was banned from talking to him and he was alerted to an institute press release that his contract was not being renewed. He wife was also sacked. Dr. Pusztai was to have two heart attacks and his wife was put on permanent medication for high blood pressure. The Rowett Institute lied and lied about the reasons for their disgraceful treatment of Dr. Pusztai, as was later proved. [image: Monsanto Logo]The truth was that his comments on GM food, coming from such a world-class source, had threatened to blow apart the Monsanto claims about the safety of GM. He had to be destroyed with the usual vindictiveness. Dr. Pusztai is certain that his demise was caused by Tony Blair. He said that the day after the World in Action program, two phone calls were made by Blair's office to his boss, Philip James, and the next day he was fired. Dr. Pusztai said he was told by a senior manager at Rowett that Blair's intervention was prompted by a phone call from the United States President Bill Clinton. The story was confirmed by Professor Robert Orskov, one of Britain's top nutrition researchers who worked for Rowett for 33 years. He said he was told that phone calls went from Monsanto to Clinton and then to Blair. ''Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James,'' he said. ''There is no doubt he was pushed by Blair to do something. It was damaging the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom because it was going to be a huge blow for Monsanto.'' Another eminent researcher, Stanley Ewen, said that he was told the same story by another senior figure at Rowett: ''That conversation is sealed in my mind. My jaw dropped to the floor. I suddenly saw it all -- it was the missing link. Until then, I couldn't understand how on Monday, Arpad had made the most wonderful breakthrough and on Tuesday it was the most dreadful piece of work and rejected out of hand.'' The vicious campaign against Dr. Pusztai was as coordinated as it was callous. Reports attacking him were published by the Illuminati Royal Society -- the scientific establishment exposed in my books -- and by the Science and Technology Select Committee of the House of Commons with its pro-Blair majority. [image: Monsanto Comic]Cabinet Minister Jack Cunningham, another Blair lap-dog, condemned Dr. Pusztai's ''wholly-misleading results'' and said that all GM food in Britain would be safe to eat. How could someone like Cunningham know that, compared with the world's leading authority? It has nothing to do with truth or protecting the public. It is about doing the will of the paymasters. The Bush government and its related agencies have been awash with Monsanto-connected place-people who have been appointed to positions that benefit its operations worldwide. It's real simple. The corporations control the government and the regulatory agencies and thus dictate the policy in line with their agenda. This is why governments constantly make decisions that favor the corporations whatever the evidence put before them. The evidence doesn't matter because the deal was done from the start and the ''public debate'' was just to kid the people they actually live in an open society. The system is set up to reward the corrupt and destroy those who are not. This is how the manipulators work to stifle dissent and mislead the public. You want to advance your career? Okay, do what we want and you'll be fine. Speak your mind and we'll finish you. [image: Monsanto]Look at Professor James, the head of Rowett, who felt the wrath of dictator Blair after Dr. Pusztai's television interview. At the time, he enjoyed good relations with Blair and had been chosen to head the planned Food Standards Agency. But that changed after Dr. Pusztai made his comments. ''You destroyed me,'' James told Pusztai. What has actually been destroyed by the corporate-political nexus is the integrity of what we call ''science.'' We know that ''scientists'' officially employed by the corporations will say whatever suits their masters, but clearly many ''independent'' scientists are also on the payroll and this is far more significant because ''independent'' research carries far more weight in the public mind. The exposure of Sir Richard Doll is a warning to everyone who believes in the credibility of ''scientists'' when they make their pronouncements about what is good for us. Corruption is a state of mind, a fundamental absence of integrity, and this plague is an epidemic throughout the system -- ''science'' included. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070108/23f5f850/attachment.html From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jan 10 08:45:24 2007 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:15:24 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] MCN: Dorgan, Snowe Introduce Net-Neutrality Bill Message-ID: <45A45A4C.C6DB6157@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6405766.html Dorgan, Snowe Introduce Net-Neutrality Bill By Ted Hearn 1/9/2007 6:19:00 PM Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday that would ban cable operators, phone companies and other providers of broadband Internet access from engaging in discriminatory management of their networks to the commercial disadvantage of Web-based providers of content and applications. The Dorgan-Snowe bill resumes the so-called network-neutrality debate from last summer -- a period when major telecommunications legislation collapsed in the Senate over whether it was necessary to protect Internet giants like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and eBay and their customers from potentially discriminatory conduct, such as the intentional blocking or slowdown of unaffiliated services that hadn't paid to use additional network capacity. Such discrimination would “fundamentally change the way the Internet has operated and threatens to derail the democratic nature of the Internet,” Dorgan said in a prepared statement with Snowe. "Today's reintroduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act marks another step toward ensuring that the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers," Snowe said. AT&T executive vice president of federal relations Tim McKone said the bill would deter, rather than promote, the deployment of high-speed-data networks. "We continue to believe that net-neutrality regulations are unwarranted and remain hopeful that lawmakers will pivot their efforts toward support of a national priority to deploy more advanced broadband to more Americans more quickly," McKone said. “We continue to believe that regulation of the Internet is unnecessary and will only stifle the investment, innovation and creativity that has been the hallmark of today's dynamic broadband marketplace,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association vice president of communications Brian Dietz said in a prepared statement. In late December, the Federal Communications Commission approved AT&T's $85.5 billion merger with BellSouth after the company volunteered to comply with net-neutrality mandates for the next two years. Dorgan and Snowe said the bill would require broadband providers to "operate the network in a nondiscriminatory manner, but [they] would remain free to manage the network to protect the security of the network or to offer different levels of broadband connection to users." In another provision, the bill would mandate that consumers have the right to purchase a "stand-alone broadband connection that is not bundled with cable, phone or voice-over-Internet-protocol service." Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- who are expected to battle for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination -- signed on as original co-sponsors of the bill. From skjha at iitb.ac.in Sun Jan 14 00:06:14 2007 From: skjha at iitb.ac.in (Shishir K Jha) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:06:14 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Creative Commons Launch at IIT Bombay, Powai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3203.10.127.133.2.1168713374.squirrel@gpo.iitb.ac.in> You are most welcome to join us for the Creative Commons launch at IIT Bombay. Creative Commons, India Launch Creative Commons, India [cc-india.org] will be launched on January 26th [4:00 pm to 6:00 pm] at F.C. Kohli auditorium, KReSIT at IIT Bombay, Mumbai. See IIT B Map for directions: www.iitb.ac.in/campus/howto/iitblayout.html [Building No. 37] —<< Confirmed speakers at the launch event: Mr. Joichi Ito [Chairman, Creative Commons] Dr. Catharina Maracke [Creative Commons, Global Coordinator] Dr. Shuddhabrata Sengupta [SARAI-CSDS, New Delhi] - To be confirmed Mr. Nandu Pradhan [President and Managing Director, Red Hat, India] Prof. Deepak Phatak [KReSIT, IIT Bombay] Lawrence Liang [Legal Lead, Creative Commons, India] —<< Brief on Mr. Joichi Ito Mr. Joichi Ito is a Japanese-born and American-educated businessman who has many areas of interest and expertise. He was recently been appointed the Chairman of Creative Commons. He is also the Chairman of iCommons [the international Creative Commons]. He runs the World of Warcraft guild, which is composed of several venture capitalists, CEOs and other influential members of the Internet economy. He also wears many other hats. He is, among other things, general manager of international operations for Technorati, chairman of Six Apart Japan, founder and chief executive of venture capital firm Neoteny, and a board member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN], Mozilla Foundation and the Open Source Initiative. He is is also the founder of Digital Garage, PSINet, Japan and Infoseek, Japan. Mr. Ito will speak about the importance of Creative Commons for a growing global digital culture in light of the launch of the Indian creative commons jurisdiction on January 26th. The intimate interaction between technology, law and culture in digital products is creating new challenges for enterprises, individuals and other organizations. How is the digital landscape getting altered with the emergence of licenses such as creative commons? Can new models be envisaged which will seriously accommodate the sharing ethos of the common individual? These and many more issues will be addressed by Mr. Joi Ito. —<< Other Events: Two parallel workshops on Creative Commons: January 26th - 27th 1. Do We Need Remix? [ www.techfest.org/workshops/remix/ ] 2. Sharing Is Creating [ www.techfest.org/workshops/sic/ ] —<< Please contact Shishir K. Jha, Project Lead, CC-India for further details: Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management IIT Bombay Powai Mumbai – 400 076 E-mail: skjha[at]iitb.ac.in Tel: 022-25767845 From vivek at sarai.net Tue Jan 16 02:53:56 2007 From: vivek at sarai.net (Vivek Narayanan) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:53:56 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Announcing: The 2007 Sarai-CSDS Independent Fellowship Projects Message-ID: <45ABF0EC.8010109@sarai.net> SELECTED SARAI-CSDS INDEPENDENT FELLOWSHIP PROPOSALS: 2007 (list is alphabetical by last name; please enable Unicode on your computer to read the Devanagiri fonts) Priya Babu, Chennai. Performance in the Aravani (Transgender) Community in Tamilnadu Dwaipayan Banerjee, Delhi. Towards A Postcolonial Code Smita Banerjee, Delhi. Cinematic City: A Study of 1950s and 1960s Popular Bangla Cinema Julius Basaiawmoit & Renee C. Lulam, Shillong. The Changing Faces of Democratic Spaces in Urban Cosmopolitan Shillong Mithun Narayan Bose, Kolkata. Tracing Life from the Stroke: Documenting the Rickshaw-Painting of Kolkata Streets Pritham Chakravarty, Chennai. Urban Sabha Dramas Arnab Chatterjee, Kolkata. Beyond Private and Public: New Perspectives on Personal and Personalist Social Work Neelima Chauhan, Delhi: ब्लॉगित हिन्दी जाति का लिंकित मन: ब्लॉगों में हिन्दी हायपरटेक्स्ट का अध्ययन (“The Linked Mind of the Blogged Hindi Jati: A Hypertextual Study of Hindi Blogs”) Raman Jit Singh Chima, Bangalore. The Regulation of the Internet by the Indian State through Legal Structures and Mechanisms Burton Cleetus, Delhi. Urbanisation, Western Medicine and Modernity: The Rockefeller Foundation in Travancore Ajit Kr. Dvivedi, Delhi. मीडिया की नज़र में सीलिंग बनाम पुश्ते का विस्थापन ("Media Study: Comparative Reporting on Ceilings and Displacement from Jamuna Pushta”) Anuja Ghoshalkar, Mumbai. Papa Aajoba. Ranu Ghosh, Kolkata. The Changing Industrial Landscape of Kolkata: Jay Engineering Works Sukanya Ghosh, Mumbai. Animation and the Development Ideal: The Idea of Nation, the Socialist Impetus and Animation Film Design in India Rajeev Ranjan Giri, Delhi. सरस्वती की सार्वजनिक दुनिया (“The Public World of the Journal Saraswati, 1900-1920”) M.S. Harilal, Thiruvananthapuram. Adopting Modernisation, Negotiating Modernisation: Modern and Traditional Ayurvedic Sectors in the Context of Transformation Zaigham Imam, Delhi/Allahabad: सपनों की रेल (“Railways of Dreams”) Santana Issar & Aditi Saraf, Delhi. Old Dog, New Tricks: Rethinking Animal Activism in an Urban Context Vivek Kumar Jain, Delhi. दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के रेहड़ी खोमचेवालों का ज़िन्दगीनामा (“A Study of Social and Cultural Spaces on the DU Campus”) Deepak Kadyan, Delhi. Popular Musical Traditions and the Configuration of Jat Identity in Haryana Ram Ganesh Kamatham, Bangalore. Vikram and Vetal: A Contemporary Urban Play Shahnawaz Khan, Srinagar. Entertainment Ghosts in Srinagar: A Tale of Cinema Halls in the City Arvind Kumar, Delhi. Caste Violence in Urban Maharashtra: A Study of the 1974 Worli Riots and the Dalit Panthers Movement Ramesh Kumar, Delhi. Film Exhibition Spaces in Delhi Gyaltsen Lama, Gangtok, Sikkim. Shamans in the City: Research and Documentation for a Comic Book Madhura Lokohare, Pune. Exploring the ‘Vartaphalak’ Culture in Pune City Nalin Mathur, Delhi. B-Grade Engineering College Culture Meena Menon, Mumbai. Recovering Lost Histories: Riot Victims and Communal Polarisation in Mumbai Yateendra Mishra, Allahabad. आत्मीयता के इर्द - गिर्द अयोध्या ("The Intimate Ayodhya”) Sayandeb Mukherjee, Hyderabad. Corridors: The Psycho-Acoustics of Corridor-Like Spaces Shubhra Nagalia, Allahabad. Representation of Communal Riots in the Hindi Media: The Case of the Mau Riots Sugata Nandi, Kolkata. Eventful Adolescence, Memorable Youth: The Politics of Personal Reminiscences in Kolkata, 1947-67 Gauri Paliwal, Indirapuram. क्योंकि हर ब्लॉग कुछ कहता है (“Because Every Blog Has Something to Say”) Bipul Pande, Delhi. रेज़ीडेंस प्रूफ (“Proof Of Residence”) Vijay Kumar Pandey, Meerut. मेरठ का प्रकाशन उद्योग (“The Publishing Industry of Meerut”) Zubin Pastakia, Mumbai. A Photographic Study of Bombay’s Cinema Halls as a Cultural Experience of Space Gopaljee Pradhan, Silchar. हिन्दी साहित्य में उत्तर -पूर्व (“The North-East in Hindi Literature”) Alok Puranik, Delhi. बाज़ार -भाव रिपोर्टिंग उर्फ़ मिर्ची भड़की और सुस्त टाटा स्टील (“A Historical Study of Bazaar Reporting in Hindi Newspapers”) Mohit Kumar Ray & Soma Ghosh, Kolkata. Heritage Ponds of Kolkata: A Contemporary History P. Jenny Rowena & Carmel Christy, Hyderabad. ‘Where Some Autorickshaws Run, Others Burn’: Caste, Class and Gender in the Urban Space of Keralam. Inder Salim, Delhi. Towards Maha-Performances. Abhik Samanta, Kolkata. The Visual Art of the Gita Press Surojit Sen, Chandannagar, Hooghly. Chandannagar and the Displacement of Prostitutes Yoginder Sikand and Naseemur Rahman, Delhi. The Shaping of Muslim Identities and the Role of Muslim Publishing Houses in Delhi Surya Prakash Upadhyay, Mumbai. Guru on the Air: Televised Hinduism in Contemporary India Shiju Sam Varughese, Delhi. The Public Sphere as a Site of Knowledge Production: Negotiations Over Tremors, Well Collapses and Coloured Rains in the Malayalam Press T. Venkat, Chennai. Building the Indian Dream: Living and Working Conditions of Migrant Workers on Chennai’s IT Corridor Chitra Venkataramani, Mumbai. Hygiene and the City: A Graphic Novel Shafia Wani, Srinagar. Aesthetics of Resistance and Women in Kashmir Ranjan Yumnam, Imphal. Imphalwood: Digital Revolution and the Death of Celluloid -- Vivek Narayanan Sarai: The New Media Initiative Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29 Rajpur Road Delhi 110 054 From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 10:46:35 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:46:35 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Report of the Mashelkar Committee on Patentability Message-ID: <908adbd0701152116j56f20aayb29368a9bcd33abc@mail.gmail.com> Hi, The full report of the Mashelkar committee (which recommends patentability for New Medical entities and to micro-organisms) is downloadable from the patent office website ( http://patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/mashelkar_committee_report.doc) Prashant Panel against curb on drug patenting The Hindu[image: external link] CHENNAI:A five-member expert committee headed by R.A.Mashelkar, the immediate past Director-General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), has recommended to the government against limiting the grant of patents for pharmaceutical substances to "new chemical entities" (NCEs) or "new medical entities" (NMEs) involving one or more inventive steps. National interest In its recommendation submitted last month, the committee has said that not only the requirement of compliance with the TRIPS (trade related aspects of intellectual property rights) agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) but also "national interest perspective" would warrant imposing any such restriction in India's Patents Act 1970 - an issue that had been raised in Parliament, following which the committee was set up. The committee similarly advised against excluding microorganism per se from patent protection from the point of view of both the TRIPS agreement and national interest. Incremental invention The report said it was important to distinguish "ever-greening" (attempts by patentees to get extension of a patent monopoly by executing trivial and insignificant changes to an already existing patented product) and "incremental innovations" which are "sequential developments that build on the original patented product and may be of tremendous value in a country like India". "Therefore such incremental developments ought to be encouraged by the Indian patent regime", it said. Referring to the opinion of a section of stakeholders that even the current provisions in the Patents Act could be held to be TRIPS non-complaint, it pointed out that drug discovery research was "still finding its feet" in India. "Though many companies are investing in R and D[image: external link], it will be a decade before a critical mass is in place and results start accruing. Thus restricting patentability to just NCEs would mean that most of the pharmaceutical product patents would be owned by MNCs". It pointed out that most of the international patents held by Indian industry were based on incremental inventions. � Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070116/ce35729a/attachment.html From annymcbeal at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 15:35:05 2007 From: annymcbeal at gmail.com (anu) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:35:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] backlash for mashelkar committee report Message-ID: <8a1161ed0701160205t2607e623r9e8d70182929fee7@mail.gmail.com> unfortunately i do not have the link for this Business Standard article, however here is the text. anu *Mashelkar panel`s view on wider patentability flayed * Joe C Mathew / New Delhi January 16, 2007 The Mashelkar panel's recommendation to consider all modifications and variants of new chemical entities (NCEs) as patentable has invited criticism from sections of Indian pharmaceutical industry and public interest organisations, saying the group had failed to back its case. Mashelkar could not be contacted for comment. The Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues, in its recommendations submitted on December 29, 2006, had noted that granting patents only to NCEs or new molecular entities (NMEs), thereby excluding modifications and variants of NCEs, would contravene the TRIPS provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It had also stated that excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of the TRIPS Agreement. Critics of the panel's views feel the "arguments are based on certain assumptions that are either irrational or highly contestable." D G Shah, secretary general, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), told Business Standard: "As the title suggests, the reference to the group was on 'patent law,' but there is hardly any evidence in the report to support its interpretation. Most parts of the report are devoted to narrating the positions of various interest groups, but very little is devoted to what made the Technical Group take the view that to limit patentability to NCEs is not compatible with the TRIPS Agreement." CENTAD, an NGO that deals with international trade policies, was more critical in its response. "The terms of reference clearly mention that the task was to find whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for a pharmaceutical substance to a new chemical entity or to a new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps. However, the committee does not answer this question and also cites so-called national interest to make its recommendation. The national interest argument is based on certain assumptions which are either irrational or highly contestable," K M Gopakumar of CENTAD said. According to him, the demand for restriction of scope of patentability for pharmaceutical inventions came up for two reasons: First on the grounds of public health, and second due to the adverse effects of misuse of patents on the generic industry. "The so-called national interest perspective considers only the interests of a few big Indian pharmaceutical companies. There is no reference to public health concerns in the report. This forces one to wonder whether public health is not a factor while considering national interest," he added. Interestingly, Indian patent law, in its current form, is TRIPS compliant and does not limit patents to NCEs or NMEs in a strict sense. Neither does it call for a blanket ban on micro-organisms. The Mashelkar panel's views were sought after the Left parties, which favoured a stricter patent regime than the current one, wanted to explore the possibility of limiting patentability only to NCEs or NMEs. With the panel's view in place, there is no chance of the Left demand being re-considered. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070116/167e3728/attachment.html From eddank at aya.yale.edu Thu Jan 18 01:40:42 2007 From: eddank at aya.yale.edu (Eddan Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:10:42 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Yale ISP's Open Standards International Symposium (OSIS) Message-ID: OPEN STANDARDS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM (OSIS) AT YALE LAW SCHOOL The Information Society Project at Yale Law School cordially invites you to attend the Open Standards International Symposium (OSIS), scheduled for February 3, 2007, at Yale Law School in New Haven, CT. Anyone interested in attending is encouraged to register at http://research.yale.edu/isp/eventsosis.html. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) standards are increasingly serving as a locus of political and economic controversy. Technical standards, though not made by legislatures or elected representatives, increasingly mediate between prevailing social tensions such as access to information versus property rights and law enforcement versus individual civil liberties. Economically, the intellectual property arrangements underlying standards determine the competitive openness of certain technology markets and intersect directly with global trade conflicts. Technically, recent interoperability problems in government services like disaster response have prompted renewed political interest in open standards around the globe. Despite the significance of open standards in the global ICT context, even the meaning of openness is a contentious topic. OSIS will be the first academic conference to examine concepts of open standards in the larger context of technology, markets, politics, and law. During this ground-breaking symposium, a distinguished international group of technologists, policymakers, entrepreneurs, executives, lawyers, computer scientists, and activists will map out the terrain of open standards issues in four panels: (1) Technology; (2) Economics; (3) Politics; and (4) Law. For a full conference description and to register for the event, please visit the symposium web site at http://research.yale.edu/isp/eventsosis.html. Confirmed speakers include: An Baisheng, Deputy Division Chief, WTO Department, Ministry of Commerce, People's Republic of China Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, and Director, Information Society Project, Yale Law School Daniel Benoliel, ISP Fellow Alumnus, Information Society Project, Yale Law School Vittorio Bertola, At-Large Advisory Committee, ICANN; President & CTO, Dynamic Fun Sherrie Bolin, President and CEO, The Bolin Group Geoffrey Bowker, Professor & Executive Director, Center for Science, Technology, and Society, Santa Clara University Carl Cargill, Chief Standards Officer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Laura DeNardis, Visiting Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School Alexander Galloway, Assistant Professor, Culture & Communication, New York University Linda Garcia, Professor & Director, Communication, Culture & Technology, Georgetown University Rishab Ghosh, Senior Researcher, United Nations University, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Training Centre on Innovation & Technology Robin Gross, Executive Director, IP Justice Eddan Katz, Executive Director, Information Society Project, and Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School Ken Krechmer, Fellow, International Center for Standards Research, University of Colorado, Boulder John Morris, Director, Internet Standards, Technology, and Policy Project, Center for Democracy and Technology John Palfrey, Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society; Clinical Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Huang Rengang, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission to the WTO, People's Republic of China Manon Ress, Director, Information Society Projects, Consumer Project on Technology Robert Shaw, Deputy Head, Strategy and Policy Unit, International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Peter Strickx, General Manager, Architecture & Standards, Fedict, Belgium Bob Sutor, Vice President, Standards and Open Source, IBM Corp. Natalie Sunker, Republic of South Africa, Deputy Director, Intellectual Property, Policy & Legislation, Department of Trade and Industry Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove LLP John Wilson, Lead Economist, Development Economics Research Group, International Trade, The World Bank From paul at waag.org Thu Jan 18 21:42:13 2007 From: paul at waag.org (Paul Keller) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:12:13 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Letter to the Commons Message-ID: <48D2AB57-E93A-4EFB-AA97-40DBBBA075C3@waag.org> [This letter is based on discussions at a workshop that took place at Waag Society in Amsterdam last may and has been published in the (Shade of the Commons reader --> http://www.waag.org/project/shade). For a list of the participants of the Workshop see below. The letter was drafted by Shuddhabrata Sengupta (Sarai)]. Dear Inhabitants of the 'legal' Commons, Greetings ! This missive arrives at your threshold from the proverbial Asiatic street, located in the shadow of an improvised bazaar, where all manner of oriental pirates and other dodgy characters gather to trade in what many amongst you consider to be stolen goods. We call them 'borrowed' goods. But a difference in the language in which one talks about things ('stolen' vs, 'borrowed') is a also a measure of the distance between two different worlds. You can only steal something if it is owned by someone in the first place. If things are not 'owned' but only held in custody, then they can only be 'borrowed' as opposed to being stolen. So what you call a 'pirated' DVD is what we would call a DVD 'borrowed' from the street, and the price we pay for it is equivalent, or at least analogous to an incremental subscription to the great circulating public library of the Asiatic street. We address this, written in the precincts of that library, to all you who enjoy the salubrious comfort of the legal commons, especially the one that calls itself 'creative'. We have occasionally stepped into your enclosures, and have fond memories of our forays. However, our sojourns in your world have of necessity had to be brief. Before long, we have been asked about our provenance, our intent, our documents. There has rarely been enough paper for us to prove that we had the right of way. We appreciate and admire the determination with which you nurture your garden of licences. The proliferation and variety of flowering contracts and clauses in your hothouses is astounding. But we find the paradox of a space that is called a commons and yet so fenced in, and in so many ways, somewhat intriguing. The number of times we had to ask for permission, and the number of security check posts we had to negotiate to enter even a corner of your commons was impressive. And each time we were at an exit we were thoroughly searched, just in case we had not pilfered something, or left some trace of a noxious weed by mistake into your fragile ecosystem. Sometimes, we found that when people spoke of 'Common Property' it was hard to know where the commons ended and where property began. Most of all, we were amazed by the ingenuity (and diligence) you display in upholding the norm that mandates that unless something had been named explicitly as part of the 'commons' by it's rightful owner, it is somehow out of bounds to everyone else. Hitherto, our understanding of the word you use, 'the commons', had suggested to us that it indicated a space where people could take according to their desires and contribute according to their capacities. This implied a relationship essentially between people, founded on a more or less taken for granted ethic of reciprocity, in the sense that what goes around, eventually comes around. However, in the space you designate as 'commons', we found that the rule is - take in accordance to the label on the thing that you encounter, and give according to the measure of the licence you prefer. This indicated that a relationship between people, was somehow replaced by a relationship between people and the things that these people owned, inherited, or had created. It meant being told that we could access something only if the owner said we could. This meant that the song or the story or the idea that had no label on it was not for the taking. We have to admit that this did feel a bit suffocating, because it was a bit like rationing the air you breathe according to whether or not you had the right to breathe freely. Strangely, the capacity to name something as 'mine', even if in order to 'share' it, requires a degree of attainments that is not in itself evenly distributed. Not everyone comes into the world with the confidence that anything is 'theirs' to share. This means, that the 'commons' in your parlance, consists of an arrangement wherein only those who are in the magic circle of confident owners effectively get a share in that which is essentially, still a configuration of different bits of fenced in property. What they do is basically effect a series of swaps, based on a mutual understanding of their exclusive propreitary rights. So I give you something of what I own, in exchange for which, I get something of what you own. The good or item in question never exits the circuit of property, even, paradoxically when it is shared. Goods that are not owned, or those that have been taken outside the circuit of ownership, effectively cannot be shared, or even circulated. Where does this leave those who have no property to begin with? Perhaps, with even less than what they might have in a scenario where there was some comfort in being able to make do with bits and pieces broken off, copied and patched together and then circulated, essentially by people who had no prior claim to cultural property or patrimony. You see, we undertook our education in the public library of the street, in the archive of the sidewalk. Here, our culture, came to us in the form of faded and distressed copies, not all wrapped and ribboned with licenses. We took what we could, when we could, where we could. Had we waited to take what we were permitted to 'share' in, we would never have gotten very far, because no one would have recognized our worth as 'shareholders'. Our attainments were not built with the confidence that comes from knowing that you have a right to own what you know, and a duty to know what you own. Your 'commons' is not a place that we can share in easily. Because, often, when you ask us for what we 'own', we have to turn away from your enquiring gaze. We own very little, and the little that we own is itself often under dispute, because no one has bothered to keep a detailed enough record of provenances. In these circumstances, if we had listen to your stipulation to share only that which we own, hardly anything would have been passed around. And for life to continue, things have to pass around. So we share a lot of things that we have never owned. They are 'borrowed'. You call this piracy. Perhaps it is piracy. But we have to think of consequences. The consequences of absences of the infrastructures that make a culture of sharing that is also a culture of legality possible. In the absence of those infrastructures, we have to rely on other mechanisms. When you do not have a public library, you have to invent one on the street, with all the books that you can muster, with everything you can beg,or borrow. Or steal. All we ask, dear inhabitants of the 'legal' commons, is for you to let us be. To be a little cautious before you condemn us. A world without our secret public libraries would be a poorer world. It would be a world in which very few people read very few books, and only those who could own things were the ones who could share them. It would also mean a world in which, eventually, very few people write books. So instead of more, there would in the end be less culture to go around. The more you own, the less you can share. All we ask is for a little time. It has not yet been conclusively proven that the culture of 'borrowing' which you happen to call 'piracy' has only negative consequences for the production of culture. It has also not yet been proven that one must necessarily read negative consequences for culture from negative consequences for the balance sheets of the culture industry. Until such time that this is done, please let us be. Learn about us by all means if you must, argue with us by all means, but do not rush to destroy the wilderness we inhabit. We admire your carefully cultivated garden. We know it is not easy for you to let us enter that space. We understand and respect that. We do not ask to be appreciated in return for the fact that we prefer hiding in the undergrowth of culture. All we ask for is the benevolence of your indifference. That will do for now. We remain, yours Denizens of Non Legal Commons, and those who travel to and from them [Based on discussions among: Shaina Anand, Namita Malhotra, Paul Keller, Lawrence Liang, Bjorn Wijers, Patrice Riemens, Monica Narula, Rasmus Fleischer, Palle Torsson, Jan Gerber, Sebastian Lüttgert, Toni Prug, vera Franz, Konrad Becker & Tabatabai] -- waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam e: paul at waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880 From lawrence at altlawforum.org Fri Jan 19 21:56:41 2007 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:56:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Remix Workshop- CC India Launch Message-ID: <034F5091-73C4-4DE6-B0AD-39BB5D0B10AF@altlawforum.org> Hi all As a part of the launch of the Creative Commons india at the Techfest in IIT Mumba, we are hapy to announce two workshops that explore remix and sharing cultures. WORKSHOP 1 Do We Need Remix? - A Tactical Exploration Through Play With Media Materials Facilitators: Members of the Sarai Media Lab Today we stand surrounded by a range and density of cultural materials. There are multiple sites of production of texts, images and sounds. These circulate with velocity through expanding and intricate networks of transmission. What is our relationship with this world of images and sounds; and what are the forms and practices that can bring us to appropriate and regenerate our own moments of insertion into these networks? What do we infringe on when we start inserting ourselves into these networks, and what possibilities do we create? Do we need remix? Dates: 26th & 27th of January, 2007 Duration: 2 sessions held over 2 days. Venue: IIT Bombay FOR MORE DETAILS VISIT http://www.techfest.org/workshops/remix/ WORKSHOP 2 Sharing Is Creating The two day workshop will be conducted by Shaina Anand, who is a filmmaker, media artist and founder of chitrakarkhana.net (picture factory/artist food) - a fully independent unit for experimental media based in Mumbai. Before one begins to embrace the framework of Creative Commons, copyleft or free media, one has to ponder deeply over notions such as 'author', 'creator' and 'copyright' holder. This workshop will enable the creation of original content and derivative works through various stages in the making of short videos. Dates: 26th & 27th of January, 2007 Duration: 2 sessions held over 2 days. Venue: IIT Bombay FOR MORE DETAILS VISIT http://www.techfest.org/workshops/sic/ All those interested in participating, please contact Shishir Jha (skjha at iitb.ac.in) Lawrence Liang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070119/086fc81f/attachment.html From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Sat Jan 20 18:34:11 2007 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:04:11 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Protecting Databases- A draft open for comments Message-ID: I am Anirban Mazumder, and I would like to invite comments for my draft paper, which you find below. Thanks! 1. Introduction It would be an atrocious doctrine to hold that dispatches, the result of the diligence and expenditure of one man, could with impunity be pilfered and published by another . . . . The mere fact that a certain class of information is open to all that seek it, is no answer to a claim to a right of property in such information made by a person who, at his own expense and by his own labor, has collected it. India has been a key beneficiary of electronic commerce. This has brought in a wave of digitization of offices and workplaces with the concomitant effects of decrease of bundles of papers and increase of bytes of databases. A database generally refers to an aggregate of information systematically arranged and fixed, whether on paper or in any other form such as electronic media, i.e. stored in computer system. While databases, like telephone directories, are “compiled out of necessity in the ordinary course of business, the originators of many electronic databases take on the risks and tasks of gathering raw data” and organizing it through an efficient search engine for easy access to data. These processes involve huge capital outlays and are undertaken solely on the prospect of generating revenue on the sale of the information or database services. In order to recover investment and to avoid free-rider or parasitic competition, the database manufacturer must be able to protect his compilation efforts. As industries in the global market progressively come to rely on electronic compilations of data, calls for new, sui generis forms of legal protection for databases have grown apace. Yet, as the quotation above illustrates, the issue of data protection is not new, nor is the world without precedent in determining how the issue of data protection ought to be resolved. 2. India’s position on a sui generis international treaty The issue of database protection has been on the agenda of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright. Studies have been commissioned on the economic implications of database laws, especially for developing countries. Note that at the Third Session of the Standing Committee, a number of countries took the view that the need for additional protection had not yet been demonstrated. These countries included India. It was reported that the Indian delegation argued that copyright protection was sufficient and working well and that there were concerns about the possible effects of database rights on the development of science, technology, research and education. 3. Database protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000 In 1999 prompted by United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s Model Law on Electronic Commerce (MLEC) and notable developments in Asian countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, India commenced with providing a legal framework for internet activity. The Union Cabinet approved the bill on May 13, 2000 and it was finally passed by both the houses of Parliament by May 17, 2000. The Act received presidential assent on June 9, 2000 as the Information Technology Act, 2000. India aims to regulate all digital activity through the Information Technology Act, 2000. However the database protections provided it to under the act is fairly limited. Specifically Section 43 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 imposes liability “to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected” if “any person without permission downloads, copies, or extracts any data, computer database or information from such computer, computer system or computer network.” The section defines “database” as the representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions prepared in a formalized manner. Though this section can be applied for electronic databases, its effectiveness is still to be tested for granting protection to databases or data on the Internet. 4. Database protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 Most municipal legal systems have steadily moved in the direction of providing protection to computer software and databases under copyright law. In principle, it is the skill, labour and judgement of the author that is protected irrespective of the form in which the product appears e.g. whether one types a book on an old-fashioned typewriter or transforms it in a digitized form or in handwritten form. Any reproduction of the work including translations is considered a reproduction of the original. Protection for databases is in India has been tested in the traditional intellectual property regime of copyright protection. This is contained under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, post 1994 amendments. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 was amended in 1994 to extend more effective protection to owners of copyright by making provision for the special nature of computer programmes as literary works and for the protection of computer generated works. The amendments included in the meaning of ‘Literary Work’ the works such as computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases. Under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, “computer database” is included in the definition of “literary work”. Database manufacturers are relying on copyright laws as databases are protected as compilations under literary works. In India, a member of the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, the requirement of originality in selection or arrangement of the contents of the database is required to attract copyright protection. Furthermore, the Copyright Act provides that copyright shall subsist in original works of authorship. To obtain copyright protection for a compilation, it must exhibit some creativity or originality in the selection or arrangement of the contents of the compilation. There has been no clear pronouncement by the Indian courts on the concept of originality and the term is not defined anywhere in the Indian Copyright Act. The courts seem to uphold the “sweat of the brow” theory or the skill, labour and judgment test in deciding copyright protection against infringement. In many cases, like McMillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb, Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, and others, the courts held that a compilation developed through devotion of time, capital, energy and skill, though taken from a common source, amounted to a literary work and was therefore protected under copyright. The courts based their decisions on the point that no person was entitled to appropriate for oneself the fruits of another's skill, labour or judgment and even a small amount of creativity in a compilation was protected. These cases clearly show that the “sweat of the brow” doctrine is being followed by Indian courts in deciding copyright protection to databases. Under Section 17(1)(c) in case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first of the copyright therein. The sections applicability to database protection was recently examined in Diljeet Titus, Advocate & Ors v. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors where the Delhi High Court held that the copyright in a database prepared by an advocate working under and in the office of another advocate by using the latter’s resources, expertise and investment, would vest in the employer advocate. In a recent case, the Delhi High Court said that in the case of compilations, another person can make a similar compilation, but cannot infringe upon the copyright of the previous compiler by appropriating the fruits of his labour. Rejecting protection for “Head notes” prepared by the plaintiff publishers, the Court observed that protection of copyright must be inherent in a creative, original selection of facts and not in the creative means used to discover the facts. The Court referred to the US Supreme Court's Feist decision and said that there should be a modicum of creativity in the selection, arrangement or co-ordination of the contents of a database to attract copyright protection. 5. Conclusion Without additional protection for non-creative databases, the Indian economy will suffer. Only clearly defined copyright and database rights will cultivate a legal environment from which the investment necessary to construct and disseminate a variety of on-line and off-line database services so vital to the development of electronic commerce may flow. The Information Age requires new legal developments. India indeed needs a new, specific legislation for legal protection of databases. It is pertinent to bear in mind that, “Information is the raw material for the new economic era which we entered upon some few short years ago. . . . In the Agrarian Age, the law developed to facilitate the ownership and use of the most important asset of the time: land. In the Industrial Age, the law developed to facilitate the ownership and use of the chattel. So, in the Information Age, we should expect the law to develop to address the use of information, and in doing so to consider whether it can indeed be owned at all.”. ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ Der neue MSN Messenger. Schreiben.Sehen.Hören. Wie im echten Leben. - http://www.imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=de Jetzt herunterladen! From apargupta at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 19:03:34 2007 From: apargupta at gmail.com (Apar Gupta) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:03:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India In-Reply-To: <4c08f9c00612050558l271ec0c7h9cde3a9eeb5854c6@mail.gmail.com> References: <4c08f9c00612050558l271ec0c7h9cde3a9eeb5854c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4c08f9c00701200533k4c0d1c26r6b761d629e9536e5@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Please find the paper allegedly written by Mr. Anirban on the following link. http://www.naavi.org/apar_gupta/ I am quite shocked by the fact that a student paper is plagiarised in totality by the faculty of a law college. Regards Apar ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Apar Gupta Date: Dec 5, 2006 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] On database law in India To: ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR < anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de> Dear Sir, I am enclosing an unpublished article on the subject which may interest you. Regards Apar Gupta On 12/5/06, ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR wrote: > > > > I am Prof. Anirban Mazumder from the National University of Juridical > Sciences, Kolkota. I am in the process of completing a novel database law > for India. There has been no initiative, before mine, to set up a database > law. I would invite comments and suggestions on the proposed database law. > > > Thank you, > > ANIRBAN > > > > > > > > > ANIRBAN MAZUMDER > LECTURER IN LAW > NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES > NUJS BHAVAN > 12 LB BLOCK > SALT LAKE CITY > CALCUTTA - 700098 > INDIA > PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) > 23357379 (O) > 25216734 ( R) > FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Die neue MSN Suche Toolbar mit Windows-Desktopsuche. Suchen Sie gleichzeitig > im Web, Ihren E-Mails und auf Ihrem PC! Jetzt neu! http://desktop.msn.de/ > Jetzt gratis downloaden! > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070120/d03bd2c3/attachment.html From skatyal at law.fordham.edu Sun Jan 21 03:35:29 2007 From: skatyal at law.fordham.edu (Sonia Katyal) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:05:29 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] commons-law Digest, Vol 42, Issue 10 Message-ID: <45B24BD9020000ED0000374F@gwgate.lawnet.fordham.edu> Hi everyone, FYI, for those who may be interested: Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program Introduction The Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program (IFP) provides opportunities for advanced study to exceptional individuals who will use this education to become leaders in their respective fields, furthering development in their own countries and greater economic and social justice worldwide. To ensure that Fellows are drawn from diverse backgrounds, IFP actively seeks candidates from social groups and communities that lack systematic access to higher education. IFP is the largest single program ever supported by the Ford Foundation. By investing $280 million over ten years through 2010, the Foundation intends to build on its half century of support for higher education. Foundation programs have long promoted the highest educational standards and achievement. Ford fellowship recipients have become leaders in institutions around the world and have helped build global knowledge in fields ranging across the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities and arts. IFP draws on this tradition and underscores the Foundation's belief that education enables people to improve their own lives as well as to assist others in the common pursuit of more equitable and just societies. General Guidelines The International Fellowships Program provides support for up to three years of formal graduate-level study leading to a masters or doctoral degree. Fellows are selected from countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia, where the Ford Foundation maintains active overseas programs. U.S. nationals are not eligible, although Fellows may study in the United States. Fellows are chosen on the basis of their leadership potential and commitment to community or national service, as well as for academic excellence. Fellows may enroll in masters or doctoral programs and may pursue any academic discipline or field of study that is consistent with the interests and goals of the Ford Foundation. The Foundation currently works in fifteen fields to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement. Once selected, Fellows may enroll in an appropriate university program anywhere in the world, including their country of residence. The program provides placement assistance to those Fellows not yet admitted to graduate school. IFP support also enables Fellows to undertake short-term language study and training in research and computer skills prior to graduate school enrollment. In addition, new Fellows attend orientation sessions, while current Fellows actively participate in learning and discussion activities designed to create information and exchange networks among IFP Fellows worldwide. Finally, the program strongly encourages IFP alumni to maintain contact with the program after completing the fellowships to help them remain current in their respective fields through the expanding IFP network. Because local requirements vary widely among IFP countries, applicants should carefully follow the specific application guidelines provided by the relevant IFP International Partner organizations, including deadlines for the submission of applications. For more information, see http://www.fordfound.org/news/more/11272000ifp/index.cfm Sonia K. Katyal Associate Professor of Law Fordham Law School 140 W. 62nd St. New York, NY 10023 Send Email: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/reg-2bioPP.ihtml?id=544&bid=766 Papers available at http://ssrn.com/author=115375 From jaynakothari at hotmail.com Sun Jan 21 21:30:02 2007 From: jaynakothari at hotmail.com (jayna kothari) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:30:02 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India In-Reply-To: <4c08f9c00701200533k4c0d1c26r6b761d629e9536e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I have been reading these emails where Anirban Mazumdar has completely taken Apar's paper and represents it as his own. I even looked at the website where the exact paper in its entirety is published as Apar Gupta's. What's going on and how can Anirban Mazumdar do it with such impunity and even post it on commons law?? This is a new generation of IP and copyright lawyers (including the likes of Mr. Rodney Ryder) who do not believe in any copyright at all!! And what is the commons law community going to do about it? Jayna ------------------------------------- Jayna Kothari Ashira Law Advocates & Solicitors 50/6 Palace Road, Bangalore-560052 India Ph: ++91 80 22261090 >From: "Apar Gupta" >To: commons-law at sarai.net >Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:03:34 +0530 > >Dear All, > >Please find the paper allegedly written by Mr. Anirban on the following >link. >http://www.naavi.org/apar_gupta/ >I am quite shocked by the fact that a student paper is plagiarised in >totality by the faculty of a law college. > >Regards > >Apar > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Apar Gupta >Date: Dec 5, 2006 7:28 PM >Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] On database law in India >To: ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR < anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de> > >Dear Sir, > >I am enclosing an unpublished article on the subject which may interest >you. > >Regards > >Apar Gupta > >On 12/5/06, ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR wrote: >> >> >> >>I am Prof. Anirban Mazumder from the National University of Juridical >>Sciences, Kolkota. I am in the process of completing a novel database law >>for India. There has been no initiative, before mine, to set up a database >>law. I would invite comments and suggestions on the proposed database law. > >> >> >>Thank you, >> >>ANIRBAN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>ANIRBAN MAZUMDER >>LECTURER IN LAW >>NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES >>NUJS BHAVAN >>12 LB BLOCK >>SALT LAKE CITY >>CALCUTTA - 700098 >>INDIA >>PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) >> 23357379 (O) >> 25216734 ( R) >>FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Die neue MSN Suche Toolbar mit Windows-Desktopsuche. Suchen Sie >gleichzeitig >>im Web, Ihren E-Mails und auf Ihrem PC! Jetzt neu! http://desktop.msn.de/ >>Jetzt gratis downloaden! >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN cricket features 'Cricketer of the Month' http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/Cricket/Default.aspx From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Jan 22 01:45:44 2007 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:45:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Protecting Databases- A draft open for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is this not the basic reality of wage labour based commodity production!!!! Labour is not adequate effort to determine property rights is very well known.....so why feel so morally outraged by it.....!! On 20-Jan-07, at 6:34 PM, ANIRBAN MAZUMDER wrote: > It would be an atrocious doctrine to hold that dispatches, the > result of the > diligence and expenditure of one man, could with impunity be > pilfered and > published by another . . . . The mere fact that a certain class of > information is open to all that seek it, is no answer to a claim to > a right > of property in such information made by a person who, at his own > expense and > by his own labor, has collected it. Beneath it all, desire of oblivion runs: Despite the artful tensions of the calendar.... (Philip Larkin) From the.solipsist at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 19:48:50 2007 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:48:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Database and labour Message-ID: <4785f1e20701230618r7896fbep7b2eee01b302794a@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Well, outrageous as the doings of Mr.Mazumdar may be, I have some comments, actually just one comment, about the paper itself, which I only managed to glance through. I guess, thus, this is addressed at Apar Gupta: The impact of the EBC India case needs greater discussion. It went against the "skill and labour" standard and imported the Feist standard of "modicum of creativity". (The "skill and labour" standard is basically the "sweat of the brow" theory, rewarding labour. The word skill seems to be a useless appendage.) However, that judgment may very well be per incuriam. The Diljeet Titus case (while seemingly uses the "sweat of the brow" theory), at one point (while quoting from a text, I forget which one) uses the phrase "skill and judgment". A Canadian Supreme Court case held (in 2003, if I'm not mistaken) that "skill and judgment" is a standard halfway between skill-and-labour and the modicum-of-creativity standard. Perhaps the effect of these two cases should be gone into in greater detail. And Mr.Bagchi, the law in India as interpreted by our courts, seems to vest intellectual property rights merely on the ground of labour expenditure. And Locke's theory is still not completely out of fashion, even in academic circles. Thus it might not be "well-known", even though in principle I tend to agree that common source ought to be a defence against copyright infringement (and hence mere labour without an iota of creativity should not be protected). In the US, it is a defence (as clarified by Feist), and in India, the position is a bit murky. While the courts have clearly held (even in the mid-90s, after Feist) that common source is not a defence, in the EBC India case, the Delhi High Court expressly went with the Feist ruling, and against the labour theory. Regards, Pranesh On 1/22/07, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fwd: On database law in India (jayna kothari) > 2. Re: Protecting Databases- A draft open for comments > (Jeebesh Bagchi) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "jayna kothari" > To: apargupta at gmail.com, commons-law at sarai.net > Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:30:02 +0530 > Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India > > Dear all, > > I have been reading these emails where Anirban Mazumdar has completely > taken > Apar's paper and represents it as his own. I even looked at the website > where the exact paper in its entirety is published as Apar Gupta's. What's > going on and how can Anirban Mazumdar do it with such impunity and even > post > it on commons law?? This is a new generation of IP and copyright lawyers > (including the likes of Mr. Rodney Ryder) who do not believe in any > copyright at all!! And what is the commons law community going to do about > it? > > Jayna > > > > > ------------------------------------- > Jayna Kothari > Ashira Law > Advocates & Solicitors > 50/6 Palace Road, > Bangalore-560052 > India > Ph: ++91 80 22261090 > > > > > > >From: "Apar Gupta" > >To: commons-law at sarai.net > >Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India > >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:03:34 +0530 > > > >Dear All, > > > >Please find the paper allegedly written by Mr. Anirban on the following > >link. > >http://www.naavi.org/apar_gupta/< > http://www.naavi.org/apar_gupta/database_protection_dec16.htm> > >I am quite shocked by the fact that a student paper is plagiarised in > >totality by the faculty of a law college. > > > >Regards > > > >Apar > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >From: Apar Gupta > >Date: Dec 5, 2006 7:28 PM > >Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] On database law in India > >To: ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR < anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de> > > > >Dear Sir, > > > >I am enclosing an unpublished article on the subject which may interest > >you. > > > >Regards > > > >Apar Gupta > > > >On 12/5/06, ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>I am Prof. Anirban Mazumder from the National University of Juridical > >>Sciences, Kolkota. I am in the process of completing a novel database > law > >>for India. There has been no initiative, before mine, to set up a > database > >>law. I would invite comments and suggestions on the proposed database > law. > > > >> > >> > >>Thank you, > >> > >>ANIRBAN > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>ANIRBAN MAZUMDER > >>LECTURER IN LAW > >>NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES > >>NUJS BHAVAN > >>12 LB BLOCK > >>SALT LAKE CITY > >>CALCUTTA - 700098 > >>INDIA > >>PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) > >> 23357379 (O) > >> 25216734 ( R) > >>FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>Die neue MSN Suche Toolbar mit Windows-Desktopsuche. Suchen Sie > >gleichzeitig > >>im Web, Ihren E-Mails und auf Ihrem PC! Jetzt neu! > http://desktop.msn.de/ > >>Jetzt gratis downloaden! > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN cricket features 'Cricketer of the Month' > http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/Cricket/Default.aspx > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeebesh Bagchi > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:45:44 +0530 > Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Protecting Databases- A draft open for comments > Is this not the basic reality of wage labour based commodity > production!!!! > > Labour is not adequate effort to determine property rights is very > well known.....so why feel so morally outraged by it.....!! > > On 20-Jan-07, at 6:34 PM, ANIRBAN MAZUMDER wrote: > > > It would be an atrocious doctrine to hold that dispatches, the > > result of the > > diligence and expenditure of one man, could with impunity be > > pilfered and > > published by another . . . . The mere fact that a certain class of > > information is open to all that seek it, is no answer to a claim to > > a right > > of property in such information made by a person who, at his own > > expense and > > by his own labor, has collected it. > > Beneath it all, desire of oblivion runs: > Despite the artful tensions of the calendar.... > (Philip Larkin) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070123/0902b55f/attachment.html From meghna_prakash at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 03:44:42 2007 From: meghna_prakash at hotmail.com (Meghna Prakash) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:44:42 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] DRM in India In-Reply-To: <034F5091-73C4-4DE6-B0AD-39BB5D0B10AF@altlawforum.org> Message-ID: I'm writing a paper on Digital Copyright and right now the broad theme of my paper is the feasability of DRM in developing countries. I would be interested in focussing on DRM in India and haven't found too much information on the Internet. I'd really appreciate any sources/papers you may have come across on the topic and any suggestions you may have on the subject. Thanks! Meghna Prakash _________________________________________________________________ Try Sanjeev Kapoor's culinary delights! http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/Cricket/Default.aspx From shwetashree at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 22:47:53 2007 From: shwetashree at hotmail.com (Shwetasree Majumder) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:17:53 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070125/4232a5e9/attachment.html From amit_spc at hotmail.com Fri Jan 26 18:34:37 2007 From: amit_spc at hotmail.com (Amit Gupta) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:04:37 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I had almost dropped the idea of reporting this kind of stuff to some one responsible in NUJS. However after the latest email by Shwetasree Majumder, I feel it is time that the authorities are atleast made aware of the kind of scholarship they are promoting for next generation. Mr. Anirban Mazumdar seems to be an example of "empty vessels make most noise". Amit ----Original Message Follows---- From: commons-law-request at sarai.net Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net To: commons-law at sarai.net Subject: commons-law Digest, Vol 42, Issue 14 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:00:02 +0100 Send commons-law mailing list submissions to commons-law at sarai.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to commons-law-request at sarai.net You can reach the person managing the list at commons-law-owner at sarai.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Fwd: On database law in India (Shwetasree Majumder) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:17:53 +0000 From: "Shwetasree Majumder" Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Fwd: On database law in India To: commons-law at sarai.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070125/4232a5e9/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law End of commons-law Digest, Vol 42, Issue 14 ******************************************* _________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/ From lawrence at altlawforum.org Sat Jan 27 16:04:02 2007 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:04:02 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Clarification from anirban mazumder Message-ID: Hi I am forward a mail from Anirban Mazumdar which probably clarifies the many mails that have been going out in his name Lawrence ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ANIRBAN MAZUMDER Date: 27-Jan-2007 15:05 Subject: clarification from anirban mazumder To: commons-law-owner at sarai.net i have come to know from one of my students that i have been charged with plagiarism. i was shocked to find out that some one has taken an e mail id (anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de) which is close to my name and copied my signature and has posted some one else's (apar gupta)article in my name into your website. the purpose is simply to defame me. i have no connection with this e mail id and the content put up from that id. i have already written to the author concerned. this is a typical problem of cyber law called identity theft and we can be victim of it any time.i am thinking of filing a complaint. please put up this clarification . please feel free to contact me for any clarification. anirban ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 ________________________________ Latest from the world of gadgets and gizmos From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Sat Jan 27 20:04:51 2007 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:34:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Clarification from anirban mazumder Message-ID: <20070127141448.GA5294@nandini.home> Lawrence Liang said on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:04:02PM +0530,: > I am forward a mail from Anirban Mazumdar which probably clarifies the > many mails that have been going out in his name (snip) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ANIRBAN MAZUMDER ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Date: 27-Jan-2007 15:05 > Subject: clarification from anirban mazumder > To: commons-law-owner at sarai.net (snip) > with plagiarism. i was shocked to find out that some one has taken > an e mail id (anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de) which is close to my name ^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmm... that is mere a slip of fingers? > copied my signature and has posted some one else's (apar > gupta)article > in my name into your website. the purpose is simply to defame me. i > have no connection with this e mail id and the content put up from > that id. i have already written to the author concerned. this is a > typical problem of cyber law called identity theft and we can be And what about the blog? Lawrence, I suppose you should turn over the original mail (with full headers) to the sarai sysadmin in order to test the origin of of both the mails. -- Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/ free - (adj) able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint; free from obligations or duties; not bound to servitude; at liberty. From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 27 23:51:30 2007 From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:51:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Will the real Mashelkar stand up? Message-ID: <0de701c7423f$f9cf3e30$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu> OUTLOOK INDIA Magazine| Feb 05, 2007 controversy: r.a. mashelkar Ex & Y Factor Is India's top science man, R.A. Mashelkar, guilty of compromising national interest, and misusing status for personal gain? PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA The Charges... a.. As CSIR boss, he nudged India to agree to demands of pro-West lobbies b.. His comments at WIPO panel were retracted by the Indian government c.. Received Rs 1.3 crore as honorarium and hospitality during 44 foreign trips, including to the UK and Switzerland d.. These trips were ‘personal’ but declared official, and income notdisclosed under various acts e.. Conflict of interest between his dual role as administrator and scientist The Defence... a.. He says he fought for the poor and made medicines more affordable b.. WIPO comments were based on government brief c.. The foreign trips were in his dual capacity as CSIR DG and scientist, like for honorary doctorates d.. So, all trips were official, entire income disclosed in his IT returns, and all permissions taken e.. He denies acting against India or for big corporates; says he created awareness for traditional knowledge *** He has been lauded as India’s most dynamic scientist. The list of prestigious awards and citations he has received runs into many pages. He took science out of the lab and brought it to factory floors. He has done more than most others to protect India’s traditional knowledge that the MNCs eye avariciously. As the longest-serving (13 years) director-general of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), which controls 40-odd research outfits with roughly 18,000 employees and an annual budget of around Rs 1,500 crore, he influenced India’s crucial policies relating to scientific research, patents and IPRS. And continues to do so even a month after he resigned. But his critics, including the Left parties and a few NGOs, allege that as the top science administrator, he nudged India’s policies to suit the demands of developed nations. And there was a conflict of interest between his dual role as an administrator and member of global committees. At least once, India had to retract views stated by Mashelkar at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) panel. There are also charges of financial impropriety against him, and the Supreme Court has admitted a PIL filed by J. Sundaresan Pillai, secretary, CSIR Scientific Workers’ Association, at the National Institute of Science Communication & Information Resources (NISCAIR), a CSIR constituent. So, who’s the real Raghunath Anant Mashelkar? Outlook spoke to Mashelkar and his critics, pored through hundreds of pages of court papers and other documents, and pieced together a fascinating account of the life and times of a dynamic, but controversial, czar of the Indian scientific establishment. At an ideological level, Mashelkar has been criticised for not always acting in India’s interests, despite his much-publicised role in the turmeric (haldi) case. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who is handling Pillai’s PIL, says there was a "clear conflict of interest" when he chaired a meeting convened by the WIPO at Casablanca, Morocco, on February 16, 2005. That meeting resolved that WIPO’s standing committee on patents should focus only on four issues (prior art, grace period, novelty and inventive steps) while two other issues (on sufficiency of disclosure and genetic resources) should be dealt with by another inter-governmental committee on intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. After the resolution became public, a ‘note verbale’ was sent by the Indian mission in Geneva to WIPO clarifying there had been no change in India’s position that there should be a holistic approach to inter-connected issues relating to intellectual property rights.It added that WIPO should go in for a single negotiating framework and not two independent tracks, as recommended by WIPO’s standing committee at Casablanca. Mashelkar, however, claims that the position he took at Casablanca was based on a brief he was provided by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and that he obtained permission from industry minister Kamal Nath to not only attend the meeting but also represent the country. He denies he acted against the country’s interests or that his actions have only helped large pharma firms. Says he: "I have always fought for the poor, for the deprived. Every action that I have taken has been in support of their cause, to make medicines accessible and affordable." Not many buy this logic. Bhushan, in a note, contends Mashelkar was a major influencing factor in India accepting product patents, which "would lead to an astronomical increase in the prices of agro seeds and pharmaceutical medicines.... At least 11 of Mashelkar’s private foreign trips were to attend the meetings of WIPO and the Intellectual Property Rights Commission, where he appears to accept their hospitality, without permission of the government. These bodies are committed to promoting product patenting", on which India and these bodies have a clear conflict of interest. The former CSIR DG argues that far from compromising the country’s sovereignty, he has helped create a "tremendous awakening...about the importance of the rich traditional knowledge base of India" all over the world that was earlier neglected. He favours an intellectual property regime that balances the interests of the poor with the need to reward Indian intellectuals and innovators. Apart from the battle over patent-related policies, Mashelkar’s critics level personal charges against the former CSIR chief. Over the last four years, over 50 questions have been raised in Parliament about Mashelkar’s foreign junkets. Many of these were raised by A. Vijayaraghavan, leader of the CPI(M) in the Rajya Sabha. Less than a fortnight before Mashelkar resigned as CSIR DG, on December 18, 2006, Pillai dashed off letters to the prime minister, minister for science & technology Kapil Sibal, the cabinet secretary, the CVC and many others, levelling a host of other allegations against Mashelkar. Pillai pointed out that between November 1997 and July 2004, the CSIR DG undertook 44 foreign visits, during which he received Rs 61.5 lakh as honorarium, and Rs 68.3 lakh as hospitality. These included 18 visits to the UK, six each to South Africa and Switzerland, four to the US, and a similar number to Indonesia and Croatia. On his trip to Brazil in December 2001, he earned over Rs 2.5 lakh as honorarium, and Rs 2.5 lakh as hospitality. During the Croatia visit in March 2004, he was given over Rs 1.7 lakh as honorarium and Rs 2.8 lakh for hospitality. According to Pillai, Mashelkar’s visits were of a ‘private’ or ‘personal’ nature but were declared ‘official’. Lawyer Bhushan claims the science doyen has violated the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). Based on a home ministry response under RTI, Pillai was told "granting of honorarium" to the CSIR DG was outside its purview. So, he claims Mashelkar may not have taken the requisite FCRA clearances. Mashelkar denies he has violated the law. Says he, "When a secretary to the Government of India goes out, there are certain rules and procedures he has to follow, which implies taking permission of the minister of science & technology.... The rules also specify that in case one is going out for undertaking any, let’s say, scientific activity like giving a keynote lecture or offering some consulting advice to a country, and in case, he receives an honorarium, that has to be declared and for which appropriate permission has to be taken.As far as I am concerned, all these permissions have been taken...." He adds that there was an overlap between his status as a scientist and his former role as an administrator. But none of his foreign visits can be categorised as ‘private’ or ‘personal’. "I’m a scientist," he says.. "Therefore I get invitations for purposes which are not normally the purposes for which administrators get invited. For example, if you get an honorary doctorate from the University of London, you go there to receive that honorary doctorate and this is not considered as a personal visit, because I also occupy the position of DG, CSIR . I’m as much of a scientist as I’m an administrator. So these invitations come to me in my capacity as a scientist for having done research. Several such honours have come my way—they come to you in an individual capacity as a scientist. When you go there, they actually provide you with local hospitality, this cannot be considered as a private visit." Mashelkar describes as "scandalous" and "irresponsible" Pillai’s suggestion that his IT returns be scrutinised because he has not given the government its share of the income he earned outside. He asserts: "I have filed all my income tax returns...declared every single penny. Every single dollar goes into my official bank account.... I feel embarrassed such questions are being asked." Pillai makes an even more serious allegation of "forgery" and "fraud" against Mashelkar in his representation to the PM. He has affixed photocopies of four sets of forms filled up by the CSIR DG in 2004 to comply with FCRA provisions in which Mashelkar’s signatures do not match. These forms were forwarded by his then secretary S.C. Kalra. Mashelkar, in his defence, admits: "I do have two signatures, one...a rapid signature when I’m responding to letters—R.A. Mashelkar. The other is on passport forms and (when I sign) bank cheques...." The former CSIR chief discredits Pillai saying the latter had been suspended from his job as a scientist by the then director, NISCAIR, G.P. Phondke, for "misbehaving" with his colleagues, and that the association he represents is not recognised by the CSIR . Pillai counters his association is registered under the Trade Union Act and has international affiliation. Moreover, he claims he has been vindicated of the above charges. A 41-page report of a departmental inquiry on allegations against Pillai and two of his colleagues conducted by retired judge Usha Mehra that was submitted on September 28, 2006, says the charges against the three "have not been proved". When told Outlook had a copy of this report, Mashelkar said he hadn’t seen it. What cannot be doubted is that Mashelkar has ‘managed’ his political masters well and created an aura about his dynamism. Post-retirement, he is currently CSIR Bhatnagar Fellow at the National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, and has reportedly received offers from more than two dozen private companies to serve on their boards of directors. Given his pro-West views on patent-related issues, it isn’t surprising that the current campaign against Mashelkar is being pushed through by the CPI(M). Left parties have been agitated by the stance that India—and Mashelkar—have taken on the issues of patents, genetic resources and traditional knowledge. A brilliant, iconic scientist or a materialistic individual? Or a bit of both? Will the real Mashelkar stand up? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/4e60196d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/4e60196d/attachment.obj From shwetashree at hotmail.com Sun Jan 28 14:27:22 2007 From: shwetashree at hotmail.com (Shwetasree Majumder) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:57:22 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Clarification from anirban mazumder In-Reply-To: <20070127141448.GA5294@nandini.home> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/77bd8d1c/attachment.html From nath at computer.org Sun Jan 28 21:42:32 2007 From: nath at computer.org (CPC) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:12:32 -0800 Subject: [Commons-Law] Clarification from anirban mazumder In-Reply-To: <20070127141448.GA5294@nandini.home> References: <20070127141448.GA5294@nandini.home> Message-ID: Dear All, If it is a part of his Ph D thesis, how can the "Prof ANIRBAN MAZUMDER" escape by such a trivial "identity theft doctrine" ? There is more to it than that. Do take a look *Anirban Mazumdar* regards nath Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] * Event: On the need for a database law: Lessons from EU? Kolkota, Jan 2007.* - *To*: undisclosed-recipients: ; - *Subject*: Event: On the need for a database law: Lessons from EU? Kolkota, Jan 2007. - *From*: "ANIRBAN MAZUMDER" - *Date*: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:13:35 +0000 ------------------------------ . Dear Sir/Madam, On January 2, 2007, Prof. Anirban Mazumder would be speaking about his pioneering work on a Database Law for India. The speech draws from his PhD thesis, that will be published by Oxford University Press in Autumn 2007. Early drafts of the book has attained critical acclaim from Prof. Hugenholtz, Prof. Lessig, Prof. Witherall, Prof. Vaidyanathan and from the international media. Prof. Mazumder would be looking at the US and EU system of protecting databases, and argues vehemently for a short period of protection in India. He proposes a free public archive wherein all the databases would be stored after their protection lapses. Venue: NUJS Bhavan, Kolkota, India Time: 2 pm on January 2, 2007 Tea and biscuits would be served. best ANIRBAN ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ E-Mails von jedem Internet-PC weltweit verschicken - einfach, sicher und kostenlos! - http://www.msn.de/email Kostenlos anmelden! _______________________________________________ nettime-ann mailing list nettime-ann {AT} nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ann On 1/27/07, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > > Lawrence Liang said on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:04:02PM +0530,: > > > I am forward a mail from Anirban Mazumdar which probably clarifies the > > many mails that have been going out in his name > > (snip) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: ANIRBAN MAZUMDER > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Date: 27-Jan-2007 15:05 > > Subject: clarification from anirban mazumder > > To: commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > (snip) > > > with plagiarism. i was shocked to find out that some one has taken > > an e mail id (anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de) which is close to my name > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Hmmm... that is mere a slip of fingers? > > > copied my signature and has posted some one else's (apar > > gupta)article > > > > > in my name into your website. the purpose is simply to defame me. i > > have no connection with this e mail id and the content put up from > > that id. i have already written to the author concerned. this is a > > typical problem of cyber law called identity theft and we can be > > And what about the blog? > > > Lawrence, I suppose you should turn over the original mail (with full > headers) to the sarai sysadmin in order to test the origin of of both > the mails. > > -- > Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/ > free - (adj) able to act at will; not hampered; > not under compulsion or restraint; free > from obligations or duties; not bound to > servitude; at liberty. > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -- ================================================== Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ================================================== CPC Nath, Founder& CTO, 01edge technologies, 6830 Woodley Ave #4, Van Nuys, CA 91406 http://01edge.com/ 310 882 1945/1984 _______________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email message including any attachments is legally privileged, confidential and is for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please immediately notify us by email and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/00584483/attachment.html From chansoobak at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 09:59:01 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:29:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on the Novartis case in the Madras High Court In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <274967.78589.qm@web37706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Beginning today, a division bench in the Madras High Court will begin hearing arguments on a series of writ petitions filed by Swiss pharmaceutical multinational Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary, Novartis India against the Indian government, the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), and four Indian generic manufacturers: Natco, Cipla, Hetero, and Ranbaxy. The writ petitions challenge the decision of the Patent Controller to refuse to grant Novartis a patent relating to the anticancer drug, imatinib mesylate, as well as the validity of a key provision in the Indian Patents Act that provided one of several grounds for rejecting the patent application. Due to the keen interest both domestically and internationally on this case, the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, representing the CPAA in these matters, will provide the general public with daily updates on the progress of the case. The reports will be factual updates without any comments as that is not permissible under Indian law relating to contempt. This initial posting will provide a brief factual and legal background leading up to the case. In 1997 Novartis AG, the Swiss Company filed a patent application in the Chennai (Madras) Patent Controller’s office for the B-crystalline of Imatinib Mesylate, brand name Glivec (Gleevec) on the ground that they invented the beta crystalline salt form (imatinib mesylate) of the free base, imatinib. The patent application was kept in the mail-box and not opened until 2005 as the TRIPS Agreement permitted developing countries to introduce product patent protection from 1 January 2005. In March 2005, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2005, the Indian Parliament enacted the patent law to protect product patent protection. A significant and important provision was introduced to prevent every greening and granting of frivolous patents, section 3 (d). In the meantime Novartis had got the Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for marketing Gleevec in the Indian market and on that basis got orders preventing some of the generic manufacturers from generic equivalents of Gleevec. Novartis was selling Gleevec at USD 2666 per patient per year. Generic companies were selling their generic versions at USD 177 to 266 per patient per month. In 2005, the CPAA and the other generic companies filed a pre-grant opposition against Novartis’ patent application for imatinib mesylate, claiming, among other things, that Novartis’ alleged "invention" lacked novelty, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that it was merely a "new form" of a "known substance" that did not enhance the substance’s efficacy, and was thus not patentable under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. These arguments were based on the fact that Novartis had already been granted a patent in 1993 for the active molecule, imatinib, and that the present application only concerned a specific crystalline form of the salt form of that compound. The CPAA and the generic companies contended that the 1993 patent effectively disclosed both the free base, imatinib, and the acid-addition salt, imatinib mesylate. Further, the CPAA and generic companies argued that different crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate did not differ in properties with respect to efficacy, and thus the various forms of imatinib mesylate must be considered the "same substance" under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. In January 2006, the Patent Controller in Chennai, in a landmark decision, refused to grant Novartis a patent, agreeing with the contentions of the CPAA and generic companies that the subject application lacked novelty, was obvious, and was unpatentable under section 3(d) of the Act. The patent rejection meant that generic companies could manufacture and market their drug, both in India and abroad, who make available the generic imatinib mesylate priced at less than one-tenth the price that Novartis was charging (USD 166 to 266 instead of 2666 per person per month). However, in May 2006, Novartis filed the current writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court, claiming that the Patent Controller erred in rejecting its patent application, and further claiming that section 3(d) was, among other things, vague, ambiguous, and contrary to the requirements of TRIPS. In the challenge to the Patent Controller’s order, Novartis has argued that the Patent Controller refused to give weight to the fact that the patent for imatinib mesylate had been granted in 35 other countries, that the Patent Controller disregarded the case law (from mostly foreign jurisdictions) placed before him, and that an in-house laboratory test performed by Novartis scientists on rats to show an alleged 30% increase in bioavailability between imatinib and imatinib mesylate was sufficient to meet the "enhanced efficacy" standard under section 3(d). The CPAA and the generic companies responded by claiming that the determinations of the other countries’ patent offices had no bearing in India, both due to differing standards for patentability and the independence of patent validity under article 4bis of the Paris Convention. They further argued that India is not bound to follow the liberal patentability criteria in effect in many other countries, and is free to set more rigorous standards for patentability. They have argued that Novartis has failed to discharge its burden of showing that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate differs significantly in efficacy from other known forms of imatinib mesylate. In the challenge to section 3(d), Novartis has argued that this provision is not in compliance with the TRIPS agreement and that it is in violation with the government’s (non-enforceable) constitutional duty to harmonise its domestic laws with its international obligations. Further, Novartis has argued that the use of the term "efficacy" in section 3(d) is vague and ambiguous, and therefore unconstitutional. Recognising the fact that the TRIPS agreement is non-self executing and provides no private right of enforcement (unlike the rights created under Chapter 11 of NAFTA and many subsequent FTAs), Novartis has advanced a somewhat novel claim that while it is open for the Indian Parliament to repudiate its international obligations altogether, it is somehow invalid and unconstitutional for Parliament to otherwise comply with TRIPS except for one particular provision. The CPAA and the generic companies have argued that it is not open to private companies or the Indian courts to decide whether the Indian Patent law is TRIPS compliant or not. They have further argued that it is not violation of any of the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution and was passed by a competent legislature, the only two grounds for striking down a statute in India, and therefore not open to challenge. They have also argued that 3(d) is clear and not vague and in full compliance with TRIPS. Whether Novartis succeeds in these challenges is likely to be determined in the coming days. We will keep you posted. In solidarity, From Chennai Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Team Anand Grover Chan Park Julie George Prafulla --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/27865524/attachment.html From chansoobak at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 09:59:13 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:29:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on the Novartis case in the Madras High Court In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <388155.77280.qm@web37706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Beginning today, a division bench in the Madras High Court will begin hearing arguments on a series of writ petitions filed by Swiss pharmaceutical multinational Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary, Novartis India against the Indian government, the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), and four Indian generic manufacturers: Natco, Cipla, Hetero, and Ranbaxy. The writ petitions challenge the decision of the Patent Controller to refuse to grant Novartis a patent relating to the anticancer drug, imatinib mesylate, as well as the validity of a key provision in the Indian Patents Act that provided one of several grounds for rejecting the patent application. Due to the keen interest both domestically and internationally on this case, the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, representing the CPAA in these matters, will provide the general public with daily updates on the progress of the case. The reports will be factual updates without any comments as that is not permissible under Indian law relating to contempt. This initial posting will provide a brief factual and legal background leading up to the case. In 1997 Novartis AG, the Swiss Company filed a patent application in the Chennai (Madras) Patent Controller’s office for the B-crystalline of Imatinib Mesylate, brand name Glivec (Gleevec) on the ground that they invented the beta crystalline salt form (imatinib mesylate) of the free base, imatinib. The patent application was kept in the mail-box and not opened until 2005 as the TRIPS Agreement permitted developing countries to introduce product patent protection from 1 January 2005. In March 2005, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2005, the Indian Parliament enacted the patent law to protect product patent protection. A significant and important provision was introduced to prevent every greening and granting of frivolous patents, section 3 (d). In the meantime Novartis had got the Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for marketing Gleevec in the Indian market and on that basis got orders preventing some of the generic manufacturers from generic equivalents of Gleevec. Novartis was selling Gleevec at USD 2666 per patient per year. Generic companies were selling their generic versions at USD 177 to 266 per patient per month. In 2005, the CPAA and the other generic companies filed a pre-grant opposition against Novartis’ patent application for imatinib mesylate, claiming, among other things, that Novartis’ alleged "invention" lacked novelty, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that it was merely a "new form" of a "known substance" that did not enhance the substance’s efficacy, and was thus not patentable under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. These arguments were based on the fact that Novartis had already been granted a patent in 1993 for the active molecule, imatinib, and that the present application only concerned a specific crystalline form of the salt form of that compound. The CPAA and the generic companies contended that the 1993 patent effectively disclosed both the free base, imatinib, and the acid-addition salt, imatinib mesylate. Further, the CPAA and generic companies argued that different crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate did not differ in properties with respect to efficacy, and thus the various forms of imatinib mesylate must be considered the "same substance" under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. In January 2006, the Patent Controller in Chennai, in a landmark decision, refused to grant Novartis a patent, agreeing with the contentions of the CPAA and generic companies that the subject application lacked novelty, was obvious, and was unpatentable under section 3(d) of the Act. The patent rejection meant that generic companies could manufacture and market their drug, both in India and abroad, who make available the generic imatinib mesylate priced at less than one-tenth the price that Novartis was charging (USD 166 to 266 instead of 2666 per person per month). However, in May 2006, Novartis filed the current writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court, claiming that the Patent Controller erred in rejecting its patent application, and further claiming that section 3(d) was, among other things, vague, ambiguous, and contrary to the requirements of TRIPS. In the challenge to the Patent Controller’s order, Novartis has argued that the Patent Controller refused to give weight to the fact that the patent for imatinib mesylate had been granted in 35 other countries, that the Patent Controller disregarded the case law (from mostly foreign jurisdictions) placed before him, and that an in-house laboratory test performed by Novartis scientists on rats to show an alleged 30% increase in bioavailability between imatinib and imatinib mesylate was sufficient to meet the "enhanced efficacy" standard under section 3(d). The CPAA and the generic companies responded by claiming that the determinations of the other countries’ patent offices had no bearing in India, both due to differing standards for patentability and the independence of patent validity under article 4bis of the Paris Convention. They further argued that India is not bound to follow the liberal patentability criteria in effect in many other countries, and is free to set more rigorous standards for patentability. They have argued that Novartis has failed to discharge its burden of showing that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate differs significantly in efficacy from other known forms of imatinib mesylate. In the challenge to section 3(d), Novartis has argued that this provision is not in compliance with the TRIPS agreement and that it is in violation with the government’s (non-enforceable) constitutional duty to harmonise its domestic laws with its international obligations. Further, Novartis has argued that the use of the term "efficacy" in section 3(d) is vague and ambiguous, and therefore unconstitutional. Recognising the fact that the TRIPS agreement is non-self executing and provides no private right of enforcement (unlike the rights created under Chapter 11 of NAFTA and many subsequent FTAs), Novartis has advanced a somewhat novel claim that while it is open for the Indian Parliament to repudiate its international obligations altogether, it is somehow invalid and unconstitutional for Parliament to otherwise comply with TRIPS except for one particular provision. The CPAA and the generic companies have argued that it is not open to private companies or the Indian courts to decide whether the Indian Patent law is TRIPS compliant or not. They have further argued that it is not violation of any of the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution and was passed by a competent legislature, the only two grounds for striking down a statute in India, and therefore not open to challenge. They have also argued that 3(d) is clear and not vague and in full compliance with TRIPS. Whether Novartis succeeds in these challenges is likely to be determined in the coming days. We will keep you posted. In solidarity, From Chennai Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Team Anand Grover Chan Park Julie George Prafulla --------------------------------- 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/6184d420/attachment.html From chansoobak at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 09:59:23 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on the Novartis case in the Madras High Court In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <120096.37184.qm@web37711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Beginning today, a division bench in the Madras High Court will begin hearing arguments on a series of writ petitions filed by Swiss pharmaceutical multinational Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary, Novartis India against the Indian government, the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA), and four Indian generic manufacturers: Natco, Cipla, Hetero, and Ranbaxy. The writ petitions challenge the decision of the Patent Controller to refuse to grant Novartis a patent relating to the anticancer drug, imatinib mesylate, as well as the validity of a key provision in the Indian Patents Act that provided one of several grounds for rejecting the patent application. Due to the keen interest both domestically and internationally on this case, the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, representing the CPAA in these matters, will provide the general public with daily updates on the progress of the case. The reports will be factual updates without any comments as that is not permissible under Indian law relating to contempt. This initial posting will provide a brief factual and legal background leading up to the case. In 1997 Novartis AG, the Swiss Company filed a patent application in the Chennai (Madras) Patent Controller’s office for the B-crystalline of Imatinib Mesylate, brand name Glivec (Gleevec) on the ground that they invented the beta crystalline salt form (imatinib mesylate) of the free base, imatinib. The patent application was kept in the mail-box and not opened until 2005 as the TRIPS Agreement permitted developing countries to introduce product patent protection from 1 January 2005. In March 2005, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2005, the Indian Parliament enacted the patent law to protect product patent protection. A significant and important provision was introduced to prevent every greening and granting of frivolous patents, section 3 (d). In the meantime Novartis had got the Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for marketing Gleevec in the Indian market and on that basis got orders preventing some of the generic manufacturers from generic equivalents of Gleevec. Novartis was selling Gleevec at USD 2666 per patient per year. Generic companies were selling their generic versions at USD 177 to 266 per patient per month. In 2005, the CPAA and the other generic companies filed a pre-grant opposition against Novartis’ patent application for imatinib mesylate, claiming, among other things, that Novartis’ alleged "invention" lacked novelty, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that it was merely a "new form" of a "known substance" that did not enhance the substance’s efficacy, and was thus not patentable under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. These arguments were based on the fact that Novartis had already been granted a patent in 1993 for the active molecule, imatinib, and that the present application only concerned a specific crystalline form of the salt form of that compound. The CPAA and the generic companies contended that the 1993 patent effectively disclosed both the free base, imatinib, and the acid-addition salt, imatinib mesylate. Further, the CPAA and generic companies argued that different crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate did not differ in properties with respect to efficacy, and thus the various forms of imatinib mesylate must be considered the "same substance" under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. In January 2006, the Patent Controller in Chennai, in a landmark decision, refused to grant Novartis a patent, agreeing with the contentions of the CPAA and generic companies that the subject application lacked novelty, was obvious, and was unpatentable under section 3(d) of the Act. The patent rejection meant that generic companies could manufacture and market their drug, both in India and abroad, who make available the generic imatinib mesylate priced at less than one-tenth the price that Novartis was charging (USD 166 to 266 instead of 2666 per person per month). However, in May 2006, Novartis filed the current writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court, claiming that the Patent Controller erred in rejecting its patent application, and further claiming that section 3(d) was, among other things, vague, ambiguous, and contrary to the requirements of TRIPS. In the challenge to the Patent Controller’s order, Novartis has argued that the Patent Controller refused to give weight to the fact that the patent for imatinib mesylate had been granted in 35 other countries, that the Patent Controller disregarded the case law (from mostly foreign jurisdictions) placed before him, and that an in-house laboratory test performed by Novartis scientists on rats to show an alleged 30% increase in bioavailability between imatinib and imatinib mesylate was sufficient to meet the "enhanced efficacy" standard under section 3(d). The CPAA and the generic companies responded by claiming that the determinations of the other countries’ patent offices had no bearing in India, both due to differing standards for patentability and the independence of patent validity under article 4bis of the Paris Convention. They further argued that India is not bound to follow the liberal patentability criteria in effect in many other countries, and is free to set more rigorous standards for patentability. They have argued that Novartis has failed to discharge its burden of showing that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate differs significantly in efficacy from other known forms of imatinib mesylate. In the challenge to section 3(d), Novartis has argued that this provision is not in compliance with the TRIPS agreement and that it is in violation with the government’s (non-enforceable) constitutional duty to harmonise its domestic laws with its international obligations. Further, Novartis has argued that the use of the term "efficacy" in section 3(d) is vague and ambiguous, and therefore unconstitutional. Recognising the fact that the TRIPS agreement is non-self executing and provides no private right of enforcement (unlike the rights created under Chapter 11 of NAFTA and many subsequent FTAs), Novartis has advanced a somewhat novel claim that while it is open for the Indian Parliament to repudiate its international obligations altogether, it is somehow invalid and unconstitutional for Parliament to otherwise comply with TRIPS except for one particular provision. The CPAA and the generic companies have argued that it is not open to private companies or the Indian courts to decide whether the Indian Patent law is TRIPS compliant or not. They have further argued that it is not violation of any of the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution and was passed by a competent legislature, the only two grounds for striking down a statute in India, and therefore not open to challenge. They have also argued that 3(d) is clear and not vague and in full compliance with TRIPS. Whether Novartis succeeds in these challenges is likely to be determined in the coming days. We will keep you posted. In solidarity, From Chennai Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Team Anand Grover Chan Park Julie George Prafulla --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/2e7cc592/attachment.html From chansoobak at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 10:06:04 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:36:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Defamation Notice Sent from CPAA to Vasella In-Reply-To: <120096.37184.qm@web37711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <592089.80296.qm@web37710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> below is the text of a defamation notice that the Cancer Patients Aid Association sent to Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella in relation to some allegations he made in a recent IP-Health watch article. 22 January 2007 Dr. Daniel Vasella Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Novartis AG Schwarzwaldallee 215 4058 Basel Switzerland. Dr. Daniel Vasella Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Novartis AG Lichstrasse 35 4002 Basel Switzerland. Sub: Defamatory statements made by you Dear Dr. Vasella, Under instructions from my client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, through its founder-Chairman, Mr. Y. K. Sapru, I have to state as under: My client, Cancer Patients Aid Association, is a charitable organisation and was registered in India under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in January 1970 and under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1940 in February 1970. My client has its registered office at 5, Malhotra House, opposite G.P.O., Mumbai – 400 001. My client has its head office in Mumbai and branch offices in Delhi, Bangalore and Pune. It also has a worldwide reputation for its integrity, hard work and dedication. My client states that it was founded with the objective of providing holistic and total management of cancer patients, including awareness, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of cancer patients. Over the past three decades, through sheer dint of hard work, my client has built up tremendous goodwill for itself as an organisation that offers help for the holistic and total management of cancer. My client states that on 10 November 2003, Novartis AG was granted exclusive marketing rights for Gleevec by the Patent Controller of India. Subsequently, Novartis AG instituted infringement actions against Indian companies, who were manufacturing and selling Gleevec at Rs. 8,000-12,000 per month in India. Novartis AG was successful in obtaining injunctions restraining most Indian companies referred to above from selling Gleevec. As a result of this, those who wanted to purchase Gleevec had to pay Rs. 120,000/- per month. My client states that therefore on 22 July 2004, it filed a petition against Novartis AG, the company of which you are the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the Exclusive Marketing Rights that was granted to Novartis AG by the Patent Controller of India. My client states that after the amendment to the Indian Patents Act in 2005, it filed a pre-grant opposition to the grant of a patent to the application filed by Novartis AG for the drug Gleevec. On 25 January 2006, the Patent Controller rejected Novartis AG’s application. My client states that pursuant to the order of the Patent Controller, Novartis AG has challenged the decision of the Patent Controller and also Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court at Chennai. My client states that it has recently come to its notice that you have made certain defamatory statements and insinuations about my client, which were published on 19 October 2006 in an article titled "Novartis Persists With Challenge to Indian Patent Law Despite Adversity", which is available on the Internet at http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=430. It is indisputable that this article is with reference to the aforementioned cases before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. It is also well-known that my client is the only patient group that is presently a party opposing you in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The article states: "Vasella said that generic companies are often behind patient groups in India, and said he would not be surprised if they gave money to the groups". Therefore, it is clear that your comments are aimed at my client and you have alleged that my client is backed by generic companies and further that it accepts money from generic companies. This is false and per se defamatory. My client has, through sheer dint of hard work, obtained for itself a lot of credibility and goodwill in society. As stated above, my client has a reputation in India and worldwide for its integrity, hard work and dedication. It is known as a patients’ group that is genuinely concerned about holistic management of cancer and assisting poorer patients in procuring drugs. It is due to my client’s concern for access to medicines for poorer patients that it has been involved in the aforementioned proceedings against you. However, your comments insinuate that my client is an organisation that is backed by and being paid money by generic companies to oppose multinational pharmaceutical companies. My client states that this is false and per se defamatory of my client and its work for cancer patients. My client wishes to state that it has not accepted any money from generic companies for the case relating to Gleevec at any time whatsoever. Moreover, the lawyers acting for my client in the Gleevec case have acted and agreed to act for my client pro bono. My client states that due to the statement made by you, my client has been portrayed as a sham patient group. This article is accessible over the Internet and can be accessed by thousands interested in the issue of access to medicines. My client has received telephone calls from journalists from India and abroad, oncologists and several close friends and relatives inquiring whether the statement made by you imputing that my client has received money from generic companies for the Gleevec case. This has put my client in an extremely embarrassing position and my client is constrained to justify the proceedings it has undertaken. You are hereby called upon to forthwith retract your statement and issue an unconditional apology over your company website and on Intellectual Property Watch, and pay an amount of USD 500,000 to my client as damages, failing which my client will be forced to initiate legal proceedings, civil or criminal, against you, entirely at your risk as to the costs and consequences, which please note. --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070128/ec2e83ec/attachment.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Jan 29 14:59:22 2007 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:59:22 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] SEDITION-ORISSA STYLE Message-ID: <705FCDD9-1336-4FEA-A04A-7ABFC431B4F6@sarai.net> Got this from Vikalp list., best j SEDITION-ORISSA STYLE The film "Lal Salam" has not been allowed to be shown in Orissa because its story is supposed to be regarding maoist activities even though it has been produced by a professional film maker and certified by the Censor board. Cast in the film includes renowned actress Nandita Das & others. Exhibiting this picture attracts the offence of "sedition" for which six Kui tribal cultural activists of Adva under Gajpati district of Orissa were sent to jail on 23rd Sept 2006. The Orissa police along with a section of CRPF seized a number of revolutionary booklets, notes and songs on Charu Majumdar and Kalinganagar issue, video CDs of "Lal Salam" film from the Kui cultural activists. The police also seized traditional musical instruments like Khanjani, Ghungura etc to substantiate the allegation of sedition under 124-A IPC. Two female activists aged about 18-20 also include the group who went to jail and are still in jail. AS per the FIR story which was lodged by the police itself the police and CRPF surrounded a tribal village on 22nd Sept at night and apprehended six Kui tribals who were performing cultural programme by singing , dancing and exhibiting the film "Lal Salam" It is said by the police that the film is on the maoist activities, which is a banned organisation as declared under the Criminal Law Amendment Act-1908. Besides, the offence "sedition", the police has also implicated the cultural activists u/s -17 (2) of the above Act. The police paper speaks that Dasuram Majhi @ Pangi is the leader of cultural team who fled the spot. The Criminal Law Amendment Act was enacted during British colonial rule, the operative provisions of which were declared void by the full bench decision of Madras High Court and Constitution Bench of Supreme Court ( A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 149).The allegation of "sedition" against the Kui cultural activists which was showing the film once again reminds the Constituent Assembly debate on "sedition" wherein K.M . Munshi pointed out "the word sedition has been a word of varying import and has created considerable doubt in the minds of not only the members the House but of courts of law all over the world. On the notorious section ¨C 124 A of Penal Code (is still in force) he further pointed out that It "was sometimes construed so widely that I remember in a case, criticism of District magistrate was urged to be covered by section ¨C 124 A". Due to objection from the members of different quarters the provision for "sedition" was dropped from the constitution. But, confirming the apprehensions of the framers of constitution this provision in the Penal Code is rampantly abused by the law enforcers to silence the voice of opposition. Freedom of speech, expression, thought etc. are the basic rights should be made available to all individuals under the democratic principles. U.N. Declaration on Human Rights ¨C 1948 provides that "every one has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." The declaration also guarantees every individual of his "cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and free development of his personality". International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provides for "the right to hold opinions without interference and right to freedom of expression either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art through any media of his choice" (Art-19). Art-15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-1966 also recognizes the "right of every one to take part in cultural life". The right to freedom of speech and expressions as one of the declared objectives of freedom struggle finds its significant position in the Fundamental Rights chapter of Indian constitution. ` But, in fact after the transfer of power the Indian rulers used the same repressive measures against the political activists for their dissent ideology as was being done by their British predecessors. So just after the implementation of the new constitution, the same oppressive and repressive mechanism of the colonial rule was brought to operation. The laws relating preventive detentions, silencing the voice of opposition by declaring ban on groups and press etc. were brought to the ground. So such laws and actions of the state were under challenge on the ground from the side of democratic struggle and also before the Indian Courts. The provision of sedition under section¨C124 A of Indian Penal Code was under challenge in different High Courts and Apex Court of the country. In the full bench decision of the Allhabad High Court, the provision of 124-A I.P.C. was declared void and ultra vires ( A.I.R. 1959 All-101). The Supreme Court in its judgment (A.I.R. 1962 ¨C S.C. 955) restricted the application of the provision only to "acts involving intention or tendency to disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence". As per Art-142 of the Constitution the law declared by the Supreme Court, has force all over the country. But, in spite of such pronouncements of the Apex Court how the Kui cultural activities can attract the offence defined as "sedition" for their performance of traditional dance, songs, with Khanjani, Ghunsura etc. is a matter of concern. The booklets on Charu Mazumdar and Kalinganagar are not banned literature either. So how all these materials shall come under the definition of "seditious materials" is also a matter of concern. The tribals, dalits, peasants are under constant attack of the state machinery and are being thrown out of their land, forests, water, the basic needs of living. On the other hand they are being harassed like anything on the plea of "law and order". To give an example, the State Govt. in its own admission have stated that there are 11, 424 minor forest cases (offence covering forest produce worth upto rupees one hundred only) pending against tribals which were decided by the State Govt to be withdrawn on the pressure of demands from democratic secsions of society (decision of the C.M. Sept. 2004). As per a recent information available under Right to Information Act 8489 such cases have been withdrawn in eight forest circles of the State. But astonishingly such cases include alleged offence for forest produces worth of Rupees ¨C 2, Rupees ¨C 3, Rupees ¨C 4 etc. Hundreds of tribals have been implicated in forest cases for "illegally" taking away forest produces worth less than rupees ten. This makes amply clear the mindset of the state against the tribals and the people of the lower strata at large Similarly, another alarming figure have come to light under RTI Act that 7145 unimportant minor criminal cases have been booked against 8763 tribals out of which most of offences include trading of "illicit liquor" in tribal area. Obviously, the cases were booked at the behest of liquor mafia who rule the roost in the tribal areas, grab the little earnings and the lands of tribals. It is just a tip of the ice berg which goes to suggest that those who are involved in bringing new thinking and are trying to open upon the minds of the common people to their right to life and livelihood and their plights are being targeted to be forcibly silenced by forces of the state. Be it the murder of Kerala threatre activist, Varkala Vijayan, veteran theatre activist Safdar Hasmi, poet Paash or arrest of Gaddar, Varavara Rao, Kalyan Rao, Dasuram Majhi @Pangi¨Cany such activist is thought to be inconvenient by the ruling cliques of the state. But, the rulers must remember that "people may be killed, ideas do not die" and such forcible suppression of voice of the people would lead to explosion in peoples' anger and violence. It is high time to condemn the design of the state machinery for their acts of dealing every issue of life and livelihood as an issue of law and order and putting the protesters behind the bar. The Chief Minister of Orissa should be urged to withdraw the criminal case and unconditionally release the Kui Cultural activists. It should be demanded before him to address the life and livelihood issues of the common mass and more specifically those of the tribals, dalits and peasants through pro-people policies and for not abbusing sharp provisions of law for silencing the dissenting voices. (Biswa Priya Kanungo) Advocate & Democratic Right Activist 2122, Sabarsahi Lane , Budheswar Colony Bhubaneswar ¨C 6, Dist.¨C Khurda (Orissa). -- From chansoobak at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 15:13:17 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:43:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on Novartis Hearing, 29.1.07 Message-ID: <152230.72097.qm@web37702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Update 4 pm IST Novartis case The Novartis matter before the Madras High Court in Chennai adjourned today until 15 February for final hearing on all issues, i.e., the challenge to 3(d) of the Patent Act,,as well as the challenge to the Patent Controller’s order on the merits. The reason being, Novartis wanted to place the Mashelkar committee report on record, whch they did only today, and upon which the counsel for the government of India wanted to seek instructions from government as to its response. As the order of the patent controller is appealable under the Indian Patent Act, Novartis AG sought to convert the writ petition into an appeal, which was opposed by some of the respondents, as also the Government of India. The issue of whether it can be converted into an appeal, and whether it is within the statutory time limits will be agitated as a preliminary issue on the 15th. Orders were also passed on the application of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance and Indian generic manufacturer, Sun Pharma, to implead them as respondents in the petition challenging 3(d) filed by Novartis AG. Novartis AG also made it clear that their challenge was two fold: namely, that 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act was not compliant with TRIPS, and on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, promoting equality and prohibiting discrimination and arbitrary state statute. On the issue whether the pleadings were sufficient to make out a claim for Article 14, counsel for Novartis contended that it was sufficiently made out in their rejoinder, and that they would stick by that. Counsel for Novartis also made it clear that they would be dropping the Article 19(1)(g) challenge, which was based on an alleged violation to practice one’s business. We will resume the update when the case resumes. In solidarity, The Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Network Team Anand Grover Chan Park Julie George Prafulla --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070129/9f02bca9/attachment.html From gopa.kumar at centad.org Mon Jan 29 18:53:36 2007 From: gopa.kumar at centad.org (Gopa Kumar) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:53:36 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Press release on novartis case Message-ID: <001c01c743a8$b0f2d720$6701a8c0@gopacba9226de3> Nearly a Quarter of a Million people Urge Novartis to Drop its Court Case in India Company would effectively be shutting down the "pharmacy of the developing world" New Delhi/Geneva, 29 January 2007 - As pharmaceutical company Novartis proceeds with its legal challenge against the Indian government in a court hearing in Chennai today, nearly a quarter of a million people from over 150 countries have expressed their concern about the negative impact the company's actions could have on access to medicines in developing countries. The Indian Network for People with HIV/AIDS (INP+), the People's Health Movement, the Centre for Trade and Development (Centad), together with the international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), called on the company again today to immediately cease its legal action in India. Many developing countries rely on affordable medicines produced in India, and such medicines constitute over half the AIDS drugs used in the developing world. India has been able to produce affordable versions of medicines patented elsewhere because until 2005, the country did not grant pharmaceutical patents. "Novartis is trying to shut down the pharmacy of the developing world," said Dr. Unni Karunakara, Medical Director of MSF's Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines, at a press briefing in New Delhi. "Indian drugs account for at least a quarter of all medicines we buy, and form the backbone of our AIDS programmes, in which 80,000 people in over 30 countries receive treatment. Over 80% of the medicines we use to treat AIDS come from India. We cannot stand by and let Novartis turn off the tap." Novartis is challenging a specific provision in India's patent law that restricts patenting of medicines to innovations only. If the provision were overturned, patents would be granted far more widely in India, heavily restricting the production of affordable medicines that has become crucial to the treatment of diseases across the developing world. "Here in India, the People's Health Movement fought hard to make sure our government implemented a law that put people's health before patents and profits," said Dr. Amit Sengupta "But now, Novartis is trying to force a change in our patent law, which could deprive people suffering from life-threatening diseases and conditions." Rules of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) obliged India to begin reviewing pharmaceutical patents in 2005. The TRIPS agreement, however, includes pro-public health safeguards that countries can implement, and India has merely included some of these in its patent law. The Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, signed by governments in 2001, reinforced the right of countries to use these safeguards. One provision of the Indian law states that any interested party can oppose a patent before it is granted in a "pre-grant opposition" process. Such oppositions have been filed against numerous patent applications on essential medicines that do not warrant patents under Indian law. "We have opposed patent applications for crucial AIDS drugs that we need to be able to access at affordable prices," said Elango Ramchandar, President of INP+. "Our survival depends greatly on winning these patent oppositions. We need everyone, everywhere to join us in our effort to get Novartis to back off here in India." The international petition urging Novartis to drop the case is ongoing. To sign the petition and for more information, visit: www.msf.org. Contact: Sheila Shettle, MSF: + 91.98.10.34.46.79 Leena Menghaney, MSF: +91.98.11.36.54.12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070129/4fd6f7b9/attachment.html From saul at theps.net Tue Jan 30 14:50:06 2007 From: saul at theps.net (Saul Albert) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:20:06 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Zoetropes and Nickelodeons: A response to OFCOMs Public Service Publisher proposal Message-ID: <20070130092006.GB5704@localdomain> Dear Commons-law list, Worse to report on this subject from the UK, as usual. Towards the end of 2006, OFCOM - the UK's telecommunications regulator ran a closed-door consultation process on the idea of setting up a 'Public Service Publisher' (PSP). The vague outline of the consultation was that some kind of public service response to the Internet was necessary beyond BBC online's existing efforts - and that approximately 100M UKP might be found to fund it - whatever it might be. This is still under discussion, in fact, OFCOM just published the results of the consultation process last Wednesday on these two websites: flashy version with pictures : http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/ text-heavy pdf: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/pspnewapproach/ NB: uses of the terms 'open' and 'commons' in these documents should be taken with heaped tablespoons of salt. I have written a longish text about the consultation on the Open Knowledge Foundation's blog: http://blog.okfn.org/2007/01/30/zoetropes-and-nickelodeons-a-response-to-ofcoms-public-service-publisher-proposal/ Have a look - and most crucially of all - respond yourselves! We have until 5pm on the 23rd March 2007. There are full instructions about how to respond here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/pspnewapproach/howtorespond/form It would be a real pity if 100M of public money gets spent on a watered down, IP-mongering, media-industry-led 'Public Service Publisher' without any real noise being made by the Free Software / Free Culture movements in the UK and beyond. Cheers, Saul. -- The People Speak | 17-25 Cremer St. London E2 8HD | http://theps.net studio +44 (0)20 76133001 | saul: +44 (0)7941 255210 | ms at theps.net From announcer at crit.org.in Wed Jan 24 22:42:18 2007 From: announcer at crit.org.in (Gnowledge Project) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:42:18 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Science, Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF) Message-ID: <1169658738.21841.173.camel@nowhereman> Dear Friends: A one day conference on "Science, Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF)" is being organised by Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education (HBCSE), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) on FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2007 from 9.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. at the Homi Bhabha Auditorium, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Colaba, Mumbai, India. Information and communication technologies (ICT) are drastically transforming human society into a very different world. Perhaps no other human invention introduced such a transformation, except may be agriculture. However, not many among us are aware of another parallel revolutionary under-current that is shaping up as a novel cultural and political movement, tiding under the waves of the ICT revolution. This movement is growing at an unprecedented pace influencing the way how science, software and other kinds of symbolic forms are created, published and distributed. This culture is often called copyleft, identified with the Free Software Movement, because this movement took off by an innovative use of existing copyright law by Richard Stallman, who founded the movement by publishing software under a copyleft license. This license is essentially about giving four fundamental rights to the user of the software published under the copyleft license: to use it for any purpose, to understand how it works, to make modifications, and to distribute the modifications. One of the major outcomes of this revolution is the GNU/Linux operating system (popularly known by its misnomer, Linux). This copyleft movement is currently transforming other fields of human creativity as well -- science, poetry, music, cinema and other symbolic forms. Of these, the most popular success story is Wikipedia http://www.wikpedia.org , the largest multilingual encyclopedia of the world. We are variously bombarded by most media, often exclusively, about the various aspects of ICT revolution, but very little awareness is commonly found about the copyleft movement. The main purpose of this conference therefore is to bridge this gap and generate awareness about this revolution, and also invite far greater participation from all sections of the community. The conference will inform about the copyleft movement in general, and its relation to science and education in particular. At this conference distinguished speakers from around the world will talk about free software, free knowledge and open standards, specifically in the context of science and education. The conference will take place from 9.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. on FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2007, and will have four main sessions: * Inauguration and Launching of the community portal, http://gnowledge.org * Introduction to "SELF: Science, Education and Learning in Freedom" European Commission Project, http://selfproject.eu * Copyleft in Science, Education and Culture * Protecting Knowledge: Open Standards and Copyleft The conference is now open for registration. Please read the full announcement, list of speakers, schedule, venue and registration details at http://self.gnowledge.org Please register online before Saturday 27 January 2007. Registration fees will be Rs. 200, which will be collected at registration desk on the day of conference. Please circulate this information to your friends and colleagues, and put it up on your notice boards. For more information, kindly contact us on selfcontact at gnowledge.org Thanks, SELF Conference Team Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education (HBCSE) Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai _____ CRIT (Collective Research Initiatives Trust), Mumbai Announcements List http://www.crit.org.in http://lists.crit.org.in/mailman/listinfo/announcer From animazum at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 20:05:20 2007 From: animazum at hotmail.com (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:35:20 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] please publish it Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070125/4f81d7e3/attachment.html From shwetashree at hotmail.com Sat Jan 27 16:42:19 2007 From: shwetashree at hotmail.com (Shwetasree Majumder) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:12:19 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Will the real Anirban please stand up! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/1b3273c1/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: anirban1.htm Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/1b3273c1/attachment.pl -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: anirban2.htm Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/1b3273c1/attachment-0001.pl -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: anirban3.htm Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070127/1b3273c1/attachment-0002.pl From apargupta at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 19:12:17 2007 From: apargupta at gmail.com (Apar Gupta) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:12:17 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] please publish it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4c08f9c00701300542o3a314eefob1454a9a3e0d7e8d@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, For several academics the most cherished facet of their profession, in addition to scratching their personal itches, is the academic respectability they enjoy amongst their peers. Here a social sanction is the most effective and the most severe. For the last one week I have been reading emails that severally criticize Prof. Anirban (anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de) for his actions. Irrespective of the identity of the offender Prof. Anirban ( animazum at hotmail.com) has been severely penalised. He has been discredited as the author of the research paper and has faced severe criticism from several group members. He has even stated that he is not the author of the article. In such circumstances I deem it unnecessary to stretch the controversy. My sole intention in drawing the reading lists attention to the plagiarism was establishing paternity. I feared that later onwards I could be accused of the same since, "student plagiarism" is a defined term and "professor plagiarism" is not. Hoping that the reading list reverts to dissecting legal theories ! Regards Apar Gupta On 1/25/07, ANIRBAN MAZUMDER wrote: > > dear all, this is to inform you that some one has taken an e mail id ( > anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de) which is very close to my name, anirban > mazumder and has copied my signature and has put up an article written by > some one else (apar gupta) on this site (commons-law). the purpose is simply > to defame me. this is a typical cyber law problem of identity theft. this > is to clearify that my e mail id is animazum at hotmail.com and not > anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de. and i have no connection with the paper put up > from anirbanmazumder at hotmail.de i have come to know this from one of my > students. i have only one id and i am using it for last ten years. this > id is known to all my students and friends. i have already written to the > author mr apar gupta, clearifying my position. i request to all of you not > to respond to anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de if you want to interact with me. > i also request to the authorities of SARAI to publish this e mail and take > appropriate measure so that a public notice can be put up in this regard. > please feel free to contact me if you need any other clearification. regards > anirban. > > > ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES > NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- > 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) > 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 > ------------------------------ > From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the > Academy Awards� > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070130/acb52e73/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 11:30:48 2007 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:30:48 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Linden Lab's "Proceed and Permit" letter Message-ID: <4785f1e20701302200v74a78c61u2258af046598dbb1@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Linden Lab, the creators of Second Life sent what was described (by Darren Barefoot) as a "proceed and permit" letter to the creator of the parody website GetaFirstLife.com (who happens to be the aforementioned Darren Barefoot). A link on GetaFirstLife.com invited "comments or cease and desist letters", and this apparently got the goat of Linden Lab. They responded with a funny notice of their own: This notice is provided on behalf of Linden Research, Inc. ("Linden Lab"), > the owner of trademark, copyright and other intellectual property rights in > and to the "Second Life" product and service offering, including the > "eye-in-hand" logo for Second Life and the website maintained at > http://secondlife.com/. > > It has come to our attention that the website located at > http://www.getafirstlife.com/ purports to appropriate certain trade dress > and marks associated with Second Life and owned by Linden Lab. That website > currently includes a link in the bottom right-hand corner for "Comments or > cease and desist letters." > > As you must be aware, the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code) contains > provisions regarding the doctrine of "fair use" of copyrighted materials > (Section 107 of the Act). Although lesser known and lesser recognized by > trademark owners, the Lanham Act (Title 15, Chapter 22, U.S. Code) > protecting trademarks is also limited by a judicial doctrine of fair use of > trademarks. Determining whether or not a particular use constitutes fair use > typically involves a multi-factor analysis that is often highly complex and > frustratingly indeterminate; however a use constituting parody can be a > somewhat simpler analysis, even where such parody involves a fairly > extensive use of the original work. > > We do not believe that reasonable people would argue as to whether the > website located at http://www.getafirstlife.com/ constitutes parody – it > clearly is. Linden Lab is well known among its customers and in the general > business community as a company with enlightened and well-informed views > regarding intellectual property rights, including the fair use doctrine, > open source licensing, and other principles that support creativity and > self-expression. We know parody when we see it. > > Moreover, Linden Lab objects to any implication that it would employ > lawyers incapable of distinguishing such obvious parody. Indeed, any > competent attorney is well aware that the outcome of sending a > cease-and-desist letter regarding a parody is only to draw more attention to > such parody, and to invite public scorn and ridicule of the humor-impaired > legal counsel. Linden Lab is well-known for having strict hiring standards, > including a requirement for having a sense of humor, from which our lawyers > receive no exception. > > In conclusion, your invitation to submit a cease-and-desist letter is > hereby rejected. > > Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is possible that your use of the > modified eye-in-hand logo for Second Life, even as parody, requires license > from Linden Lab, especially with respect to your sale of goods with the > parody mark at http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. Linden Lab hereby > grants you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, revocable, > limited license to use the modified eye-in-hand logo (as displayed on > http://www.getafirstlife.com/ as of January 21, 2007) to identify only > your goods and/or services that are sold at > http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. This license may be modified, > addended, or revoked at any time by Linden Lab in its sole discretion. > > Best regards, > > Linden Lab > This may not teach anything to all those other companies sending cease-and-desist notices at the drop of a hat (remember the ABC and Barney the Purple Dinosaur parody site?), but it at least provides a few chuckles. Cheers, Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070131/c57c0a09/attachment.html From chansoobak at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 11:49:49 2007 From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:19:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] HEALTH-INDIA: Anger Grows at Novartis' Bid to Hog Cancer Drug Message-ID: <910897.98273.qm@web37702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> HEALTH-INDIA: Anger Grows at Novartis' Bid to Hog Cancer Drug Keya Acharya BANGALORE, Jan 30 (IPS) - A public outcry has followed the challenge offered by Novartis AG in the Madras High Court to the Indian Patents Act as violating international trade laws and restricting the Swiss pharmaceutical giant's trade. In April 2005, the Indian government as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and signatory to its trade-related intellectual property (TRIPS) provisions amended domestic law to recognise 20-year patents on products, annulling the country's 7-year patents on processes. A slew of important generic-drugs or those being produced after patent expiry have since been forced off the market, unless, as per clauses in the amended Indian Patents Act, the patent applications can be proved to be not 'new' or involving innovative molecular research. In the first test of the amended Indian law, Novartis applied for a patent on its leukaemia-treatment drug 'Gleevec', but was rejected by the Patents Office in southern Chennai city as not being innovative enough. The company thereafter filed a writ in the Madras High Court, located in Chennai, challenging the rejection. The court hearing was adjourned to Feb. 15 due to Novartis wishing to include a recent report commissioned by Indian Parliament and headed by R.A. Mashelkar, former head of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, to look into the question of patentability. The Mashelkar report asks for inclusion of patents on medical entities with 'one or more' inventive steps, in the 'national interest', thereby allowing patents on products that do not involve new molecules. Several legal and civic groups are outraged at the report as having 'sold out' to corporate interests, and have been slamming Novartis ever since it exerted exclusive marketing rights in 2004 for Gleevec, pushing prices up from 175 US dollars to 2,000 dollars per month of treatment, affecting immediately India's 25 million leukaemia patients. "I think what happened in court yesterday (Monday) is an example of 'double-speak' in India," says Dr. Thelma Narayan, joint convenor of 'Jan Swasthya Abhiyan', the national face of the global People's Health Movement (PHF). " Novartis was recently given a global award with United Nations recognition for 'corporate social responsibility', yet millions in India and poor countries are either dying or not being able to afford treatment due to the company's bid at market monopoly of a generic drug. I think such giant MNCs need to be exposed," Bangalore-based Narayan told IPS. "If the Mashelkar report had defined inventions properly, we could have saved the situation," B.K Keyala, a former patent commissioner of India and part of the 'People's Commission' headed by former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral, told IPS. Keyala says he has organised four commissions on patents awareness with influential individuals participating but, ''no one has cared enough.'' At least seven civic, legal and health groups together with the PHF and the Medicins san Frontieres (MSF) have been campaigning actively in the last year against Novartis filing for patent claim on Gleevec. Lawyers' Collective, the legal advisers to the Cancer Patients Aid Association opposing Novartis in court, have broadened the issue in public to include essential drugs since the Novartis judgement will indirectly impact the manufacture and affordability of generic drugs for not only leukaemia but also for treatment of other significant cancers, HIV/AIDS and several other diseases in developing countries. Anand Grover of the Lawyers' Collective blames the Indian government's seemingly pro-corporate stance and says it is being influenced by western trade agendas, especially that of the United States. "Government policies are only thinking about the hype of India being poised as an economic powerhouse, without addressing the needs of its poor. " Keyala too agrees that corporate agendas, especially of multinational drug giants, have influenced government, but believes that civic groups could have strategised differently for better effect. "They need to campaign for including HIV as a national emergency and then get generic drugs out of the patents' circle," Keyala said. According to Grover there are several equally essential drugs that cannot be termed as treatments for national emergencies. Under Indian law, and allowed by WTO under the Doha Declaration, generic drugs used for public health emergencies can be manufactured under licence. "Winning from the patent office itself, due to our pre-grant opposition, was a big thing, " says Naveen Thomas of the All India Drug Action Network, based in Bangalore. "We can still fight with 'them', everything is not lost," said Dr. Prakash Rao of the state-level Drug Action Forum in Bangalore. Yet the Indian medical fraternity has been visibly silent in this civic discontent against what Novartis' patent claim stands for. Dr. Ananth Phadke of the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes at Pune in south-western India, feels that Indian doctors are not sensitised enough to drug histories and patents in their medical curricula, besides being 'wooed' by drug manufacturers. But Dr. Ajay Kumar, president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) with over 178,000 doctor-members countrywide, says he feels 'very strongly' about the whole issue of generic drugs and price rise through patenting. "Corporatisation of medicine serves only one percent of India's population. I will be taking up the issue of pricing and allowing Indian pharmaceuticals to manufacture generics with the government,'' Kumar told IPS, over telephone from the eastern Indian city of Patna. The next legal challenge taking shape in India is the multinational drug lobbies' pressure on the government to insert 'data exclusivity' or the prevention of use of data from clinical trials by the Drug Controller's Office, through amendments in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act that controls drug marketing. "By implication, as long as the exclusivity lasts, generic producers would have to submit their own data to prove safety and efficacy, which would oblige them to repeat the clinical trials. This is something that would cause significant delay that many generic manufacturers cannot afford,'' says a WHO bulletin released in March 2006. The Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign, spearheaded by the Delhi-based Lawyers' Collective has conveyed its concern to Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, highlighting how data exclusivity impedes the use of compulsory licences in public health emergencies and prevents drug regulatory authorities themselves from relying on test data already in their possession for subsequent approval of generic versions of the medicine. (FIN/2007) --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070130/6fa31131/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Wed Jan 31 20:06:48 2007 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:06:48 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Contributions to Sarai Reader 07: The Frontier Message-ID: <6EFE4AA5-85D3-4204-94E4-6AFD32D31EE1@sarai.net> Call for Contributions to Sarai Reader 07: The Frontier I. Introducing the Sarai Reader Sarai (www.sarai.net), an interdisciplinary research and practice programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, invites contributions to Sarai Reader 07: The Frontier We also invite proposals to initiate and moderate discussions on the themes of the Sarai Reader 06 on the Reader List (http:// mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list) with a view to the moderator(s) editing the transcripts of these discussions for publication in the Sarai Reader 07. For an outline of the themes and concerns of Sarai Reader 07, see the Concept Outline below (section II). To know about the format of the articles that we invite, see 'Guidelines for Submissions' (sections III and IV) below. This year, like last year, the Sarai Reader has been invited to participate in the 'Journal of Journals' magazine project of Documenta 12. (see http://www.documenta12.de/magazine.html?&L=1). Content from Sarai Reader 07 will be selected by the Sarai editorial collective to be published online on the Documenta 12 Magazine webpage. The Sarai Reader is an annual publication produced by Sarai/CSDS (Delhi). Previous Readers have included 'The Public Domain: Sarai Reader 01', 2001, 'The Cities of Everyday Life: Sarai Reader 02', 2002, 'Shaping Technologies: Sarai Reader 03', 2003, 'Crisis/Media: Sarai Reader 04', 2004, 'Bare Acts: Sarai Reader 05', 2005 and 'Turbulence: Sarai Reader 06', 2006. All the Sarai Readers are available for free download at http://www.sarai.net/journal/journal.htm The Sarai Reader series aims at bringing together original, thoughtful, critical, reflective, well researched and provocative texts and essays by theorists, practitioners and activists, grouped under a core theme that expresses the interests of Sarai in issues that relate media, information and society in the contemporary world. The Sarai Readers have a wide international readership. Editorial Collective for Sarai Reader: Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula, Ravi Sundaram, Ravi Vasudevan, Awadhendra Sharan, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, (Sarai, Delhi) and Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam) II. Concepts and Questions for Sarai Reader 07: Frontiers Frequently at frontiers we are asked, 'Anything to declare?' The wisest thing to do when faced with the scrutiny of a border official is to say that you have 'Nothing to declare', and quickly move on. Crossing borders usually entails an effort not to say too much, or at least to get by with saying very little. A degree of reticence is the mark of the wise and experienced traveller. Sarai Reader 07: The Frontier, seeks to turn this ethic of reticence on arrival at a boundary, at any boundary, on its head. This time, the Reader will consider limits, edges, borders and margins of all kind to be sites for declarations, occasions for conversation, settings for the staging of arguments, debates, recounting and reflection. We invite you to consider the frontier as an open door, a chute into something new, or the rediscovery of that which has been obscured, a hidden tunnel that crosses under a mountain, a porous membrane of liminal possibilities, a zone of contact and contagion. We want to think of the frontier as the skin of our time and our world, and we invite you to get under the skin of contemporary experience in order to generate a series of subcutaneous reflective possibilities. For us, the frontier is a threshold waiting to be crossed, a space rife with the possibility of seductive transgression. The feeling of being on the edge of something has persisted for most of our lifetimes. The twentieth century was an exhausting journey into a receding future, and the first decade of the twenty-first continues to entrance us with the seduction of what seems to be forthcoming forever. We are all pioneers now, chasing and being chased by the shifting border-posts of the frontiers given to us by history. Yet our enterprises of pioneering do not necessarily carry with them any longer the confidence of self proclaimed 'avant gardes'. We are scouts sent in to scan the lay of the land of the territory of uncertainty. Our reports are the dispatches that chronicle, not our conquest of, but our continuing bewilderment about, the times we inhabit. We are not talking here only of actual, physical borders (though of course we are interested in physical and political borders) which are usually the residues of war, but also of the borders between different temporal registers, between languages, between different ways of doing things, between different bodies of thought and conviction. Looked at this way, the frontier is more a condition than a site, more a way of being and doing things, than a constellation of border posts on the ground. The DMZ of the present, straddling the recent past and the immediate future, is the most striking frontier of all, inviting us to consider the continuities and ruptures, revolutions and restorations that litter the landscape of all our histories like bunkers and watchtowers on either side. We could also consider the borders between faith and doubt, between technology and technique, between history and memory, between art and science, between literature and reportage, between the empirical and the speculative. We are interested in all forms of expression that straddle these spaces, especially in those that make forays into those zones of exception, such as prisons, detention camps, sites of remand and quarantine that maintain human beings at the edge. Here we see the relentless production of states of exception by power in a way that constantly redefines the boundaries of what might be considered normal. With each passing day, the normal condition of the world comes to resemble yesterday's state of exception, and today's state of exception seeks to lay the foundations of tomorrow's normality. This tension between the exception and the rule is another kind of frontier, which we hope will provoke new investigations. Today, we live in cities that expand by evacuating people from centres and relocating them onto empty hinterlands. The shifting locus of infrastructural renewal in megacities constantly generates new urban frontiers. Here, in these liminal spaces which resemble maps and grids more closely than they do actual spaces for habitation, the question of what it is to be urban in the time of evictions is asked with a violent, daily urgency. A rough list of questions and concepts that Sarai Reader 07 wants to take on could be as follows: 1. The tension between exceptions and rules as the necessary mark of a frontier of the human condition today. Ways in which architectures, instruments and devices to do with the regulation of social, political and personal life, of ethics and politics, re-define the boundaries of our being and consciousness. The tightening and loosening of the armour of society and politics. 2. Reconsidering lines that cannot be crossed - in political, social, ethical and aesthetic terms. The idea of taboos, transgressions and the forbidden, especially in the light of what has come to be termed as 'political correctness'. 3. The shifting frontiers and outposts of legality in everyday life. 4. The borders between practices - such as software and art, or performance and contemporary social ritual, or between forms - such as between cinema and the internet, between digital and analog technologies, or between different registers of reflection - such as history and literature. 5. Connections and contacts, especially between things and ideas that would seem at first to be distant or adversarial in relation to each other. Hybridities, Contagion and infections - between belief systems (sometimes generating heresies), languages and ways of doing things 6. Reflections on the idea of the 'urban frontier' wherever it may be found. Here by 'urban frontier' we mean those new and transforming edges where the limits of the urban condition are being tried and tested through eviction and resettlement. 7. Architectures of separation, exclusion, inclusion and connectivity. 8. Mobility and obstacles. Is the internet any longer a borderless space? 9. The border between the real and the virtual, the physical and the mental, role-playing and reality 10. Activities that involve unusual kinds of border crossing - smuggling, immigration, illicit and unconscious trade, globalization from below 11. The border as a feature of a fluid political geography - walls (like at the Mexico US Border), fences (like on India-Bangladesh- Pakistan borders), demilitarized zones (like in Korea), buffers, enclaves, outposts and other unstable units of space. Histories and accounts of frontier areas, and of shifting borders. 12. Frontiers of the imagination. Space Travel, Science Fiction, Utopias, Alternative Realities and their continuing presence in our lives. We want to invite practitioners and others, some of whom may be audacious even as others may be tentative, wherever in the world they may be located, whether in the domains of theory, research, contemporary art, media, information and software design, politics or commentary to join us in the making of Sarai Reader 07. You are invited to contribute through essays, dialogues, arguments, interviews, photographs, image-text combinations, comics, art-works, diary entries, research reports, commentaries and manifestos that can evoke the idea of the frontier in all its myriad dimensions. SARAI READER 07 and documenta 12 This year (like last year) the Sarai Reader has been invited to participate in the 'Journal of Journals' magazine project of documenta 12. "documenta (with a lower-case 'd') is an exhibition of modern and contemporary art which now takes place every 5 years in Kassel, Germany. It was founded by Arnold Bode in 1955 .The more recent documentas feature art from all continents and are perceived to have been some of the most significant contemporary art exhibitions to have taken place internationally. documenta 12 features a ‘journal of journals’ project that invites leading critical and reflective publications from all over the world to participate in a collaborative curatorial and editorial exercise to generate a global frame of contemporary discourse." For details, see http://www.documenta12.de/magazine.html?&L=1 III. Guidelines for Submissions Word Limit: 1500 - 4000 words 1. Submissions may be scholarly, journalistic or literary - or a mix of these, in the form of essays, papers, interviews, online discussions or diary entries. All submission, unless specifically solicited, must be in English only. Submissions may also be only images or images and text. The Reader is printed in black and white. 2. Text submissions must be sent by email as .rtf, or as word document or open office attachments. Articles may be accompanied by black and white photographs or drawings submitted in the first in the .jpeg format accompanying the text (if any) and then in .tif format if there is decision to print. Ftp server details will be made available if needed. 3. We urge all writers to follow the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) in terms of footnotes, annotations and references. For more details about the CMS and an updated list of Frequently Asked Questions, see http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.html For a 'Quick Reference Guide to the Chicago Manual of Style', especially relevant for citation style, see http:// www.library.wwu.edu/ref/Refhome/chicago.html 4. All contributions should be accompanied by a three/four line text introducing the author, and an email address they are willing to make public. 5. All submissions will be read by the editorial collective of the Sarai Reader before the final selection is made. The editorial collective reserves the right not to publish any material sent to it for publication in the Sarai Reader on stylistic or editorial grounds. All contributors will be informed of the final decisions of the editorial collective vis a vis their contribution. 6. Copyright for all accepted contributions will remain with the authors. Sarai reserves indefinitely the right to place any of the material accepted for publication on the public domain in print or electronic forms, and on the internet. 7. Accepted submissions will not be paid for, but authors are guaranteed a wide international readership. The Reader will be published in print, distributed in India and internationally, and will also be uploaded in a pdf form on to the Sarai website. All contributors whose work has been accepted for publication will receive two copies of the Reader. IV. Where and When to send your Contributions Last date for submission: 15th May 2007. Please write and send as soon as possible, preferably, latest by the 30th of March, 2007, a brief outline/abstract, not more than one page, of what you want to write about. This helps in designing the content of the reader. We expect to have the reader published by August 2007. Please send in your outlines and abstracts, and images/graphic material, to reader at sarai.net Monica Narula Raqs Media Collective Sarai-CSDS 29 Rajpur Road Delhi 110054 www.raqsmediacollective.net www.sarai.net