From oishiksircar at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 02:20:02 2007 From: oishiksircar at gmail.com (OISHIK SIRCAR) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:50:02 -0600 Subject: [Commons-Law] Renewed Call for Articles/ InfoChange Agenda issue on Migration and Displacement In-Reply-To: <62cba67a0711061227i24e827d4n5311aafc9f7060b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <62cba67a0711061218y2754ff68lb4bf84b5ea7f3f0c@mail.gmail.com> <62cba67a0711061225k1a1a07e4t389183b19845a189@mail.gmail.com> <62cba67a0711061227i24e827d4n5311aafc9f7060b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62cba67a0711061250vbd3b0a2g6cebc233d476d082@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: I am writing to invite contributions to the next issue of *InfoChange Agenda *, a journal on issues of development and rights which I am guest-editing. This special issue is on 'Migration and Displacement'. *This is a renewed call for articles - so you are welcome to contribute even if you did contribute earlier.* *InfoChange Agenda *has been conceived as a quarterly dossier that informs civil society on crucial issues of sustainable development and social justice, diversity and pluralism issues that are being pushed into the margins. It is designed to enable concerned citizens in India/ South Asia to marshal salient information, facts, figures, perspectives and reportage, so that they *can* clarify *their* ideas and participate in drawing up their own agenda for a more equitable and sustainable world. You can find more information on Infochange Agenda and access the previous issues at www.infochangeindia.org ** The broad themes being explored in this issue tentatively are: *1. **Why People Move* *2. **The Legacy of 'Partition' and '**Independence**': How has it has shaped '** India **' today? * *3. **Refugees in **India**: Questions of Rights and Protection* *4. **The Internally Displaced in **India**: Exodus within Borders* *5. **Of Migration, Trafficking and Sex work: Confusing Conflations* *6. **Development or Displacement? Searching for answers beyond the rhetoric* *7. **Reporting Disasters: Displacement and Media Sensitivity* *8. **The case of 'Other' Indians: Biharis in **Assam** and 'Outsiders' in **Maharashtra * ** *9. **A Critique of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee's (UNHCR) work in **India*** *10. **Displaced Women and Children: Vulnerability Unlimited?* *11. **Displacement Dispatches* i. Narmada Valley ii. Orissa iii. Jharkhand iv. Indo-Bangladesh Border v. North-East India vi. Post-carnage Gujarat vii. Latur viii. Singur/ Nandigram *12. **Tsunami Tales* *13. **Homelessness and Displacement: Evictions in Metros* *14. **The Indian government's policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R)* Of course, the themes are not limited to these. You are welcome to write on anything else that is connected with the broader theme of 'Migration and Displacement'. Since InfoChange Agenda is not a purely academic journal, I request you to use minimal footnoting and make the pieces journalistic or feature-like. Please try and stick to a word limit of 2000-3000. The Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS) that publishes the journal will be happy to pay you a fee of Rs. 2000 for the contribution. So please do send your complete postal address along with the article. Can I also request you to maintain a deadline of December 30. This deadline is marginally extendable if you commit to contributing. You can email it to oishiksircar at gmail.com A contribution from you will not only be an invaluable addition to the compilation but also lend a huge amount of credibility to our work. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Warmly, Oishik Sircar -- OISHIK SIRCAR Fellow in Reproductive & Sexual Health and Women's Rights (LLM Programme) Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 60 Harbord Street Room 016 B Toronto, ON M5S 3L1 oishiksircar at gmail.com oishik.sircar at utoronto.ca 416.876.7926 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071106/a06603e5/attachment.html From eddank at aya.yale.edu Thu Nov 8 00:18:55 2007 From: eddank at aya.yale.edu (Eddan Katz) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:48:55 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Yale ISP's Reputation Economies in Cyberspace Symposium - Dec. 8, 2007 Message-ID: <690442CC-DCB2-4438-B9AD-32583CE21A1A@aya.yale.edu> The Information Society Project at Yale Law School is proud to present Reputation Economies in Cyberspace. The symposium will be held on December 8, 2007 at Yale Law School in New Haven, CT. This event will bring together representatives from industry, government, and academia to explore themes in online reputation, community-mediated information production, and their implications for democracy and innovation. The symposium is made possible by the generous support of the Microsoft Corporation. A distinguished group of experts will map out the terrain of reputation economies in four panels: (1) Making Your Name Online; (2) Privacy and Reputation Protection; (3) Reputation and Information Quality; and (4) Ownership of Cyber-Reputation. See below for more detail on each panel; a current list of confirmed speakers is available at the conference website. Online registration is available now at: https://wems.worldtek.com/ RepEcon. There is a $95 registration fee, which includes lunch. Yale students and faculty and members of the press may attend for free. For more information, see: http://isp.law.yale.edu/reputation. SYMPOSIUM ON REPUTATION ECONOMIES IN CYBERSPACE Panel I: Making Your Name Online Moderator: Jack Balkin - Director, Information Society Project and Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School Panelists: Michel Bauwens - Founder, The Foundation for P2P Alternatives Rishab A. Ghosh - Senior Researcher, United Nations University -MERIT Auren Hofman - CEO, Rapleaf Hassan Masum - Senior Research Co-ordinator, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health Beth Noveck - Professor of Law and Director, Institute for Information Law and Policy, New York Law School This panel will discuss the shifts in the reputation economy that we are witnessing, largely the transition from accreditation to participatory, community-based modes of reputation management. Some of the questions the panel will address include: What are the new norms for cyber-reputation? How do these depart from offline models? How can reputation in one online system be transported to another? How do SNS and reputation connect? How do you bootstrap and cash out? Panel II: Privacy and Reputational Protection Moderator: Michael Zimmer - Microsoft Resident Fellow, Information Society Project and Post-Doctoral Associate, Yale Law School Panelists: Alessandro Acquisti - Assistant Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University Danielle Citron - Assistant Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law William McGeveran - Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Law School Dan Solove - Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School Jonathan Zittrain - Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Oxford University; Visiting Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies, Harvard Law School Cyber-reputation management is based on transactions in information that is often sensitive and is always contextual. This brings up many questions about the need to protect one's privacy and reputation within and outside this system. Some of the questions the panel will address: How is participation in cyber-reputation systems related to defamation and free speech? What happens when cyber-reputation spills over into offline activities and relationships like the political process, job applications, or school admissions? What happens when your second life meets your first? Requiring divulgence of real name or other personal data. Is opting out possible? Pending legislation on S495 - data security and privacy Panel III: Reputational Quality and Information Quality Moderator: Laura Forlano - Visiting Fellow, Information Society Project Panelists: Urs Gasser - Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Gallen Ashish Goel - Associate Professor, Management Science and Engineering and Computer Science, Stanford University Darko Kirovski - Senior Researcher, Microsoft Corporation Mari Kuraishi - President, Global Giving Foundation Vipul Ved Prakash - Founder, Cloudmark Evidently, unlike traditional reputation mechanisms that relied on small group acquaintances and formal accreditation mechanisms, the cyber-reputation economy is heavily mediated by technology. This raises the risk of breaking the delicate checks and balances that are necessary for the system to ensure quality of both the informational outcomes and the participants' reputation. This panel will try to highlight the connections between the way the new systems are built, and the outcome they produce. Some of the questions the panel will address: How can we assure quality in online reputation economies? What is the connections between the system design and the quality information? How good are the alternative accreditation mechanisms and how easy are they to hijack? How can employment discrimination law adapt to the realities of online reputation? Panel IV: Ownership of Cyber-Reputation Moderator: Eddan Katz - Executive Director, Information Society Project and Lecturer-in-Law and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School Panelists: John Clippinger - Senior Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School Eric Goldman - Assistant Professor and Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law faculty Bob Sutor - Vice President Open Source and Standards, IBM Corporation Mozelle Thompson - Thompson Strategic Consulting; (former FTC Commissioner) Rebecca Tushnet - Professor, Georgetown University Law Center The data and information that are collected in online reputation systems are both valuable and powerful. The ability to control this information, store it, process it, access it, and transport it are crucial to the maintenance of the reputation economy. This panel will address the important set of questions that concern the ownership of this information. Some questions the panel will address: Who owns one's online reputation? Who owns the metadata? How portable is online reputation? Should it be transportable from one system to another? How is reputation connected to the interoperability question? Should we have international standards governing reputation? From patrice at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 9 18:57:37 2007 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:27:37 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff Barrier to International Trade? Message-ID: <20071109132737.GA93800@xs4all.nl> No Apps for X-posting! ;-) NGO advocacy activism: A new form of Non-Tariff Barrier to International Trade? Pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bangalore, India, at the moment is a (criminal) case brought forward by the Indian textile firm "Fibre and Fabrics International" (FFI) against two Dutch advocay NGOs, Clean Clothes Campaign and the India Committee for the Netherlands (SKK and LIW, by their local acronyms) and their respective Internet access providers, XS4ALL and Antenna. FFI is a fairly large enterprise engaged in garment manufacture for export operating as a sub-contractor to major international clothing labels, among them G-Star, an originally Dutch multinational. SKK and LIW had both relayed internationally the seriously distressing findings of local unions and civil society groups regarding the working conditions at FFI's manufacturing plants, and this after the firm had managed to silence their local critics by judicial means. FFI was not best pleased with the subsequent international attention this attracted, especially since it seems to have lost it important clients in the process. Now eight Dutch citizens, staff persons and directors of the afore-mentioned organisations, are indicted and required to appear in person before court in India under a mendacious, but cleverly constructed 'cascade' of counts, starting with libel and diffamation, escalating into racism/ xenophobia carried on by means of 'cybercrime', and culminating in an alleged "international criminal conspiracy". The latter indictment constitutes an extraditable offense in the sense of international agreements on judicial co-operation between democratic, 'rule of law' states. The acting judge in Bangalore now needs only to sign an international arrest warrant for the real risk of deportation and delivery of these eight accused into an Indian remand jail to become effective. Though the Dutch minister of justice still would have the last word, he has not yet shown any inclination to take a stand in the matter, as he seems to see this as a purely private dispute. (The Dutch foreign ministry meanwhile, perceives the whole affair as profoundly embarassing - for the buoyant Dutch-Indian trade relations. ) This slightly out-of-control evolution of what in itself would be a fairly routinous incident in to-day's fiercely competitive globalised economy, might be taken as emblematic for the predicament into which the ongoing trend to lower procurement costs, and outsource and delocalise industrial production has landed us. Over the past two decades, scandals about labour and human rights abuses in emergent economies have been legion, national and international organisations, NGOs and CSOs have been locked in fierce struggles with corporates and governments big and small, and some, if slow, progress has been made to alleviate at least the worst excesses of labour exploitation. Both at the local and at the international level, agreements, rules and (self-)regulations have seen the light, and are being increasingly enforced and/ or respected. Yet the present case, and the case with India in general, is slightly different - and none too hopeful. For reasons both demographic and cultural, India, since the 'liberalisation' of its economy in the early 90s, has embarked in a mode of development that may be best characterised as elitist, with its entry into globalisation aimed to be at the upper reach rather than at a wholesale level, starting from below - as is the case with China. Unable to achieve this goal in glamorous sectors such as IT alone, India has been satisfied to allow the - very substanbtial - contribution of the more generic manufacturing sector (eg textiles) to be of a nature one can only very charitably describe as 'traditional', although it is in fact entirely, and scandalously so, at variance with 21st century ethical, or even plainly economic standards. As there is very little likelyhood that this dispensation will be altered - with the political will, and power, to do so obviously lacking, and this again, as opposed to the situation in China - India and its manufacturing export industry now are constantly confronted with damning, and very damaging, socio-political criticism, both at home and abroad. Today however, it would appear that the Indian authorities and (part of) the business community have embarked in response in a spirited, if probably desperate, rear-guard action to spite and harass their opponents. India's minister of commerce, Shri Kamal Nath, has let it known that criticism of the modus operandi of the Indian textile export industry amounts to 'hidden protectionism' by parties unhappy with India's competitive provess and resenting the consequent delocalisation of their own manufacturing base, theoretising a fresh form of NTBtIT (Non Tariff Barrier to International Trade in WTO-GATTese) in the same breath. He also let known his sentiment in none too diplomatic language to his counterparts in various countries harbouring pesky and in his view objectionable activist NGOs, and has now even called European trade commissionner Peter Mandelson to the rescue. His next step could be to take the dispute to the WTO itself, where one can only hope, but not entirely be sure of, that he will bring the house down in roars of laughter.However, in the meanwhile, the Indian government appears to be entirely supportive of the 'robust' judicial steps taken by firms such as FFI to safeguard their frayed reputation and interests. Rear-guard actions being what they are, their ultimate failure should not distract from the considerable, and sometime fatal damage they may inflict in the short term, to individuals, organisations, and principle of fairness the upholding of basic human rights. A perverse consequence, or as some would say, an intended effect, of increasing international judicial collaboration in the wake of the globalisation of trade, but also of crime, threats, and risks, is the opportunity to have annoying opponents or critics, first of governments, now apparently also of corporate interests, delivered into the hands of whatever 'rule of law' jurisdiction the powers that be deem appropriate to intimidate, harass, and possibly even eliminate them. This should not be allowed to happen. Check out for background (from the accuseds point of view): http://www.indianet.nl/ffie.html http://www.cleanclothes.org/ also for the latest scandal involving the Indian textile industry: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200590,00.html Googling for 'labour ('child-'), 'India' and 'textile(s) (industry) will unearth a further wealt of recent information... Patrice Riemens Firenze, November 9, 2007. From eye at ranadasgupta.com Mon Nov 12 11:56:53 2007 From: eye at ranadasgupta.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:56:53 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Music industry insider defends piracy Message-ID: <4737F22D.5080406@ranadasgupta.com> A guy who worked in the music industry and thought downloading was stealing eventually joined the pirates because he found the industry's tactics so reprehensible. Here he advises all to stop buying from major music companies and to campaign against the current IP regime. http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html From tato at paris.com Mon Nov 12 16:29:29 2007 From: tato at paris.com (Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:59:29 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? Message-ID: <20071112105929.53A8511581F@ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> French Information Resource Centre INVITES YOU TO Connexions – Indo-French Dialogue Series On Tuesday 13 November 2007, at 5.30 pm ======================================= India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? A lecture by Come Carpentier de Gourdon Come Carpentier de Gourdon is currently the Convener of the Editorial Board of the World Affairs Journal, a quarterly publication dedicated to international issues, sponsored by the Kapur Surya Foundation (a co-sponsor of the “World Public Forum for Dialogue of Civilisations”) New Delhi, India. He shares his time between India, France, Italy and Switzerland. He has lived and travelled in more than fifty countries on four continents. He is also a consultant to Indfos Industries Ltd, a company founded and chaired by the well known Indian philosopher, futurologist and engineer J.C. Kapur, and continues to provide consulting services to various other companies in India and Europe. The lecture will be followed by a reception =========================================== Venue: FIRC Library The Embassy of France in India 2 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi 110011 Tel: 30 41 0053/ E-mail:culture at fircdel.com -- Want an e-mail address like mine? Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071112/b75aceec/attachment.html From patrice at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 13 11:48:57 2007 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:18:57 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] ITUC Online: India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses Message-ID: <20071113061857.GA4919@xs4all.nl> Folowing my post on advocay NGOs falling foul on G.o.I. INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC) ITUC Online 193/081107 India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses Brussels, 9 November 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC has criticised attempts by the Indian government and the Bangalore Court to cover up serious labour rights violations by the Fibre & Fabrics International company (FFI) and its subsidiary Jeans Knits Pvt. Ltd in the Indian city. Local labour rights groups, supported by the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) and the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) initially exposed the violations in 2005. Following this the company, which supplies jeans to Dutch company G-Star and other international brands, took legal action in 2006 in the Bangalooru Court to ban the local groups, CCC and ICN from speaking about or publicising the violations. The CCC subsequently took the issue up with under the procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, stressing that under the gagging order, local trade unions cannot operate freely, and that companies doing business with FFI cannot implement any credible form of corporate social responsibility programme. The company filed a court case against the CCC, ICN, internet provider Antenna and adsl supplier Xs4ALL, alleging that they engaged in cyber crime, defamation, racism and xenophobia. Refusing to accept that they be represented by a lawyer rather than travelling to India to appear in person, the Court issued summonses against the four organisations and seven individuals. A November 20 Court hearing is expected to determine whether the court will seek to issue international arrest warrants against the worker rights advocates. The initial report put forward by the CCC and ICN on the company based on interviews with workers from various parts of the company's operations, revealed physical and verbal abuse of the workforce, hazardous working conditions, lack of proper employment contracts, long working hours and non-payment of overtime entitlements. CCC and ICN did acknowledge that some improvements had been made by the company management after the release of the report, but that serious problems continued to exist. They called on the company to take part in a process of dialogue with the local trade union GATWU and independent mediators, however the company continued its court action instead. "All these people have done is to try to tell the truth about severe exploitation of the FFI workers," said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. "Instead of supporting the employer's use of the local Court to threaten labour rights supporters with criminal proceedings which carry penalties of up to two years in prison, the Indian government should be defending the rights of its own people and not leaving them at the mercy of unscrupulous bosses", he added. The ITUC understand that the attack on CCC and ICN has now been taken up with the Dutch and other European governments and the European Commission by the Indian Trade and Commerce Ministry, which has claimed that the publicity around this and similar cases is a "non-tariff barrier" to trade. In past years, India has consistently refused to allow any discussion at the WTO of violations of labour standards. "Actions of this kind can only hurt India's reputation as a country with which global companies can do business in confidence, and we urge them to put a stop to this unacceptable attack on freedom of speech and fundamental workers' rights", said Ryder. The ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories and has 305 national affiliates. Website: http://www.ituc-csi.org ; For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on: +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018. From rus.cahimb at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 14:30:46 2007 From: rus.cahimb at gmail.com (Ramanathan Muthaiah) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:30:46 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] : Missing Archives, Nov'2007 Message-ID: Hi, I cannot find, any of the topics listed below, in the archives section: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/ Am I missing something here ? /Ram On 11/13/07, 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. NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff Barrier to > International Trade? (Patrice Riemens) > 2. Music industry insider defends piracy (Rana Dasgupta) > 3. India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and > "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? > (Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato) > 4. ITUC Online: India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up > of Worker Rights Abuses (Patrice Riemens) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:27:37 +0100 > From: Patrice Riemens > Subject: [Commons-Law] NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff > Barrier to International Trade? > To: reader-list at sarai.net > Cc: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071109132737.GA93800 at xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > No Apps for X-posting! > ;-) > > > > NGO advocacy activism: A new form of Non-Tariff Barrier to International > Trade? > > > Pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bangalore, India, at > the moment is a (criminal) case brought forward by the Indian textile firm > "Fibre and Fabrics International" (FFI) against two Dutch advocay NGOs, > Clean Clothes Campaign and the India Committee for the Netherlands (SKK > and LIW, by their local acronyms) and their respective Internet access > providers, XS4ALL and Antenna. FFI is a fairly large enterprise engaged in > garment manufacture for export operating as a sub-contractor to major > international clothing labels, among them G-Star, an originally Dutch > multinational. SKK and LIW had both relayed internationally the seriously > distressing findings of local unions and civil society groups regarding > the working conditions at FFI's manufacturing plants, and this after the > firm had managed to silence their local critics by judicial means. FFI was > not best pleased with the subsequent international attention this > attracted, especially since it seems to have lost it important clients in > the process. > > Now eight Dutch citizens, staff persons and directors of the > afore-mentioned organisations, are indicted and required to appear in > person before court in India under a mendacious, but cleverly constructed > 'cascade' of counts, starting with libel and diffamation, escalating into > racism/ xenophobia carried on by means of 'cybercrime', and culminating in > an alleged "international criminal conspiracy". The latter indictment > constitutes an extraditable offense in the sense of international > agreements on judicial co-operation between democratic, 'rule of law' > states. The acting judge in Bangalore now needs only to sign an > international arrest warrant for the real risk of deportation and delivery > of these eight accused into an Indian remand jail to become effective. > Though the Dutch minister of justice still would have the last word, he > has not yet shown any inclination to take a stand in the matter, as he > seems to see this as a purely private dispute. (The Dutch foreign > ministry meanwhile, perceives the whole affair as profoundly embarassing - > for the buoyant Dutch-Indian trade relations. ) > > This slightly out-of-control evolution of what in itself would be a fairly > routinous incident in to-day's fiercely competitive globalised economy, > might be taken as emblematic for the predicament into which the ongoing > trend to lower procurement costs, and outsource and delocalise industrial > production has landed us. Over the past two decades, scandals about labour > and human rights abuses in emergent economies have been legion, national > and international organisations, NGOs and CSOs have been locked in fierce > struggles with corporates and governments big and small, and some, if > slow, progress has been made to alleviate at least the worst excesses of > labour exploitation. Both at the local and at the international level, > agreements, rules and (self-)regulations have seen the light, and are > being increasingly enforced and/ or respected. Yet the present case, and > the case with India in general, is slightly different - and none too > hopeful. > > For reasons both demographic and cultural, India, since the > 'liberalisation' of its economy in the early 90s, has embarked in a mode > of development that may be best characterised as elitist, with its entry > into globalisation aimed to be at the upper reach rather than at a > wholesale level, starting from below - as is the case with China. Unable > to achieve this goal in glamorous sectors such as IT alone, India has been > satisfied to allow the - very substanbtial - contribution of the more > generic manufacturing sector (eg textiles) to be of a nature one can only > very charitably describe as 'traditional', although it is in fact > entirely, and scandalously so, at variance with 21st century ethical, or > even plainly economic standards. As there is very little likelyhood that > this dispensation will be altered - with the political will, and power, to > do so obviously lacking, and this again, as opposed to the situation in > China - India and its manufacturing export industry now are constantly > confronted with damning, and very damaging, socio-political criticism, > both at home and abroad. > > Today however, it would appear that the Indian authorities and (part of) > the business community have embarked in response in a spirited, if > probably desperate, rear-guard action to spite and harass their opponents. > India's minister of commerce, Shri Kamal Nath, has let it known that > criticism of the modus operandi of the Indian textile export industry > amounts to 'hidden protectionism' by parties unhappy with India's > competitive provess and resenting the consequent delocalisation of their > own manufacturing base, theoretising a fresh form of NTBtIT (Non Tariff > Barrier to International Trade in WTO-GATTese) in the same breath. He also > let known his sentiment in none too diplomatic language to his > counterparts in various countries harbouring pesky and in his view > objectionable activist NGOs, and has now even called European trade > commissionner Peter Mandelson to the rescue. His next step could be to > take the dispute to the WTO itself, where one can only hope, but not > entirely be sure of, that he will bring the house down in roars of > laughter.However, in the meanwhile, the Indian government appears to be > entirely supportive of the 'robust' judicial steps taken by firms such as > FFI to safeguard their frayed reputation and interests. > > Rear-guard actions being what they are, their ultimate failure should not > distract from the considerable, and sometime fatal damage they may inflict > in the short term, to individuals, organisations, and principle of > fairness the upholding of basic human rights. A perverse consequence, or > as some would say, an intended effect, of increasing international > judicial collaboration in the wake of the globalisation of trade, but also > of crime, threats, and risks, is the opportunity to have annoying > opponents or critics, first of governments, now apparently also of > corporate interests, delivered into the hands of whatever 'rule of law' > jurisdiction the powers that be deem appropriate to intimidate, harass, > and possibly even eliminate them. > > This should not be allowed to happen. > > > Check out for background (from the accuseds point of view): > http://www.indianet.nl/ffie.html > http://www.cleanclothes.org/ > > also for the latest scandal involving the Indian textile industry: > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200590,00.html > Googling for 'labour ('child-'), 'India' and 'textile(s) (industry) will > unearth a further wealt of recent information... > > > Patrice Riemens > Firenze, November 9, 2007. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:56:53 +0530 > From: Rana Dasgupta > Subject: [Commons-Law] Music industry insider defends piracy > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <4737F22D.5080406 at ranadasgupta.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > A guy who worked in the music industry and thought downloading was > stealing eventually joined the pirates because he found the industry's > tactics so reprehensible. Here he advises all to stop buying from major > music companies and to campaign against the current IP regime. > > http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:59:29 -0500 > From: "Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato" > Subject: [Commons-Law] India and France : "Co-existence within > diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite > systems? > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071112105929.53A8511581F at ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" > > French Information Resource Centre > > INVITES YOU TO > > Connexions – Indo-French Dialogue Series > > > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, at 5.30 pm > ======================================= > > India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic > Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? > > A lecture by > > Come Carpentier de Gourdon > > Come Carpentier de Gourdon is currently the Convener of the Editorial > Board of the World Affairs Journal, a quarterly publication dedicated to > international issues, sponsored by the Kapur Surya Foundation (a > co-sponsor of the “World Public Forum for Dialogue of > Civilisations”) New Delhi, India. He shares his time between India, > France, Italy and Switzerland. He has lived and travelled in more than > fifty countries on four continents. He is also a consultant to Indfos > Industries Ltd, a company founded and chaired by the well known Indian > philosopher, futurologist and engineer J.C. Kapur, and continues to > provide consulting services to various other companies in India and > Europe. > > > > The lecture will be followed by a reception > =========================================== > > Venue: FIRC Library > > The Embassy of France in India > > 2 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi 110011 > Tel: 30 41 0053/ E-mail:culture at fircdel.com > > -- > Want an e-mail address like mine? > Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071112/b75aceec/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:18:57 +0100 > From: Patrice Riemens > Subject: [Commons-Law] ITUC Online: India: Government Supports > Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses > To: reader-list at sarai.net > Cc: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071113061857.GA4919 at xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Folowing my post on advocay NGOs falling foul on G.o.I. > > > > INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC) > > ITUC Online > 193/081107 > > India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses > > > Brussels, 9 November 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC has criticised > attempts by the Indian government and the Bangalore Court to cover up > serious labour rights violations by the Fibre & Fabrics International > company (FFI) and its subsidiary Jeans Knits Pvt. Ltd in the Indian > city. Local labour rights groups, supported by the Clean Clothes > Campaign (CCC) and the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) > initially exposed the violations in 2005. Following this the company, > which supplies jeans to Dutch company G-Star and other international > brands, took legal action in 2006 in the Bangalooru Court to ban the > local groups, CCC and ICN from speaking about or publicising the violations. > > The CCC subsequently took the issue up with under the procedures of the > OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, stressing that under the > gagging order, local trade unions cannot operate freely, and that > companies doing business with FFI cannot implement any credible form of > corporate social responsibility programme. The company filed a court > case against the CCC, ICN, internet provider Antenna and adsl supplier > Xs4ALL, alleging that they engaged in cyber crime, defamation, racism > and xenophobia. Refusing to accept that they be represented by a lawyer > rather than travelling to India to appear in person, the Court issued > summonses against the four organisations and seven individuals. A > November 20 Court hearing is expected to determine whether the court > will seek to issue international arrest warrants against the worker > rights advocates. > > The initial report put forward by the CCC and ICN on the company based > on interviews with workers from various parts of the company's > operations, revealed physical and verbal abuse of the workforce, > hazardous working conditions, lack of proper employment contracts, long > working hours and non-payment of overtime entitlements. CCC and ICN did > acknowledge that some improvements had been made by the company > management after the release of the report, but that serious problems > continued to exist. They called on the company to take part in a > process of dialogue with the local trade union GATWU and independent > mediators, however the company continued its court action instead. > > "All these people have done is to try to tell the truth about severe > exploitation of the FFI workers," said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. > "Instead of supporting the employer's use of the local Court to threaten > labour rights supporters with criminal proceedings which carry penalties > of up to two years in prison, the Indian government should be defending > the rights of its own people and not leaving them at the mercy of > unscrupulous bosses", he added. > > The ITUC understand that the attack on CCC and ICN has now been taken up > with the Dutch and other European governments and the European > Commission by the Indian Trade and Commerce Ministry, which has claimed > that the publicity around this and similar cases is a "non-tariff > barrier" to trade. In past years, India has consistently refused to > allow any discussion at the WTO of violations of labour standards. > > "Actions of this kind can only hurt India's reputation as a country with > which global companies can do business in confidence, and we urge them > to put a stop to this unacceptable attack on freedom of speech and > fundamental workers' rights", said Ryder. > > The ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories > and has 305 national affiliates. Website: http://www.ituc-csi.org > ; > > For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on: +32 2 > 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 > ****************************************** > From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 13 15:13:51 2007 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:43:51 +0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] : Missing Archives, Nov'2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862F1A1A-A5C6-4D33-BBC5-F5637ED10441@sarai.net> On 13-Nov-07, at 2:00 PM, Ramanathan Muthaiah wrote: > http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/ i am bit confused by the absence of the archive. will check with the tech backend. warmly jeebesh From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 12:07:40 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:07:40 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] TN: 172 persons held for video piracy in 2007 Message-ID: <908adbd0711132237w2bf59600x4efdf2b22c2dbf16@mail.gmail.com> * http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/14/stories/2007111460840500.htm* ------------------------------ [image: ICICI Bank] Tamil Nadu - Chennai * 172 persons held for video piracy * Staff Reporter CHENNAI: The Central Crime Branch has, over the last one year, arrested 172 persons and registered 159 cases of copying and selling pirated compact discs (CD) and Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) of new films in the city. Of those arrested, five habitual offenders from Burma Bazaar were detained under the Goondas Act, according to a release. The value of the equipment seized during the period is estimated to be Rs.10.34 crore, as against Rs.1crore equipment seized last year. This year, Rs.8.36 crore worth VCDs/DVDs, Rs.1.58 crore worth printing machines, besides wrappers, DVD writers, computer equipment, photostat machines and two-wheelers and four-wheelers used for transport have been seized. On Monday, three persons were arrested and 4,375 CDs of films released during Deepavali were seized by the CCB Police and cases were registered against them under the Copy Right Act. The total value of the items seized on Monday was estimated to be Rs.26lakh. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071114/62d28ce2/attachment.html From notification-l at thecornerhouse.org.uk Tue Nov 13 19:04:33 2007 From: notification-l at thecornerhouse.org.uk (The Corner House - news and information) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:34:33 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [Commons-Law] Landmark ruling on BAE-Saudi corruption case Message-ID: <20505.217.146.126.96.1194960873.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> -- apologies for cross-postings -- -- please circulate to your networks -- The Corner House and CAAT win landmark ruling on BAE-Saudi corruption case This past Friday, 9 November 2007, just before 1 pm, two High Court judges granted permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House for a full judicial review hearing against the UK Government's decision in December last year to cut short a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Within minutes, the news was being broadcast on radio, television and the web around the world, from 'The Hindu' to the 'Houston Chronicle'. Both groups were inundated with requests for media interviews - including from media channels that we didn't think covered the news . . . Our apologies, therefore, that we're a little slow on this Monday morning in informing our own listserve of what has happened. Following is a summary of Friday's decision and updated background to the case, together with some of the major news articles. PERMISSION GRANTED At an oral hearing on Friday 9 November in the UK's High Court, Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, granted permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House to bring a full judicial review hearing against the UK Government's decision to cut short a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. (The Serious Fraud Office is a UK government department that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud.) Lawyers for the two groups had argued before the judges that the SFO decision was unlawful under the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention, which the UK signed in 1997 (To see our arguments, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558468). Lord Justice Moses agreed with the groups that the issue 'cries out for a public hearing' because it involves 'matters of concern and public importance'. He concluded that 'it is in everyone's interest that a full hearing take place' and was 'surprised' that the Government had opposed the application. The full judicial review hearing has now been scheduled for some time after 28 January 2008, and is expected to last two days. The hearing will not be about the allegations that BAE ran a 'slush fund' to influence officials for its Saudi arms contracts, but will consider only whether the UK Government acted illegally in ending the SFO investigation into these allegations. In the meantime (but probably before the end of this year), a further Court hearing will take place to prepare for the judicial review. At this Directions Hearing, the Court will rule on matters such as: - the extent to which the Government may apply for Public Interest Immunity Certificates to prevent public disclosure of the Government's evidence; - what, if any, safeguards may be put in place (such as the appointment of security cleared Special Advocates to represent CAAT and The Corner House in the event of any closed hearing); - the full details of the Protective Costs Order awarded to CAAT and The Corner House in principle (see below). Symon Hill of CAAT said of the judges' decision to give permission for a judicial review, 'This is brilliant news for everyone who wants to see an end to arms companies' influence over government and for everyone who cares about justice in Britain. We are now one step further today to the point when BAE Systems is no longer calling the shots.' Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said, 'Today is a great day for British justice. The courts have today shown that no one is above the law -- not BAE Systems, not the Government, not Saudi princes. There are key legal principles at stake here. At last this case will get the public hearing it deserves.' BACKGROUND TO LEGAL CHALLENGE Since the 1980s, the UK has supplied Tornado fighter and ground attack aircraft and associated products and support services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under a series of very high-value arms deals known as 'Al Yamamah' ('The Dove'). The aircraft sold to Saudi Arabia under the Al Yamamah deals are all manufactured by BAE, the UK's largest arms manufacturer. (For more information, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles and http://www.controlbae.org/) In 2004, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) initiated an investigation into alleged bribery and false accounting by BAE in relation to the Al Yamamah deals, including corruption offences since March 2002, when bribery of foreign officials became a crime in the UK. One allegation is that BAE ran a £60 million 'slush fund' for the personal benefit of Saudi royals. On 14th December 2006, the SFO announced that it was ending its investigation into these bribery allegations on the grounds that continuing the investigation might lead to Saudi Arabia withdrawing diplomatic cooperation with the UK on security and intelligence. Just four days later, on 18th December 2006, The Corner House and CAAT wrote to the UK Government arguing that the SFO decision was unlawful and should be reversed. The basis for the legal challenge hinges on the UK's obligations under the Anti-Bribery Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which Britain signed in 1997. Article 5 of the Convention expressly forbids the termination of corruption investigations on grounds other than the merits of the case being investigated. Signatory governments specifically undertake NOT to be influenced 'by the potential effect [of an investigation] upon relations with another State . . .' (For more on this, go to the 'Corruption' pages of The Corner House website: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/corruption/) Yet the SFO decision was purportedly based on considerations of potential damage to relations with Saudi Arabia, and thus to the UK's national security, if the BAE-Saudi arms deals investigation continued. The Saudis had reportedly stated that if the investigation was not called off, they would no longer supply the UK with intelligence information to the UK on terrorist threats. The source of this threat is believed to be Prince Bandar bin Sultan, one of those who allegedly received some of the 'corrupt payments' from BAE. At the 9th November oral hearing, Lord Justice Moses summarised the Saudi position as he understood it as a threat to withdraw intelligence cooperation with the UK, and thereby potentially see people in Britain blown up, rather than continue the investigation and see one of their number being accused of bribery or involvement in corruption. As the Government did not restore the SFO investigation, on 23rd February 2007, The Corner House and CAAT began an application for a judicial review -- a court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. However, the full application was delayed because it had been discovered that BAE had obtained CAAT's confidential and privileged legal advice about the judicial review. In a separate legal action brought by CAAT, BAE Systems revealed that it had been paying a private investigator to obtain information about CAAT. The group has since learnt that BAE has been involved in yet further unlawful acts of spying, and is continuing to pursue, through the Court process, answers to questions of how confidential information came into the hands of BAE. It was thus only on 18th April 2007 that CAAT and The Corner House were able to lodge their full grounds for an application for a judicial review. In May, a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins, considered these grounds, and the Government's response to them, which is to deny any breach of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention -- but to declare that the Government would have taken the decision to terminate the SFO investigation anyway, regardless of any violation of international law, in the interests of national security. According to the Government, compliance with the Convention 'was not . . . a critical or decisive matter' in making the decision. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, however, has no exemption for national security. On 29th May 2007, Judge Collins refused to grant permission for a judicial review hearing on the grounds that 'national security must always prevail', stating that the request was 'wholly unarguable'. The groups appealed this decision, resulting in the November oral hearing. The decision by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin to give the go-head for the judicial review overturns this refusal. In granting permission for the judicial review, Lord Justice Moses stressed that the issue was closely concerned with the legal system in this country that 'judges have to protect'. He was referring to the controversial overlap of powers in the UK between the Attorney General (the chief legal adviser to the Government who ultimately decides whether to go ahead with a prosecution or not) and the Executive (or the government). Lord Justice Moses was asserting the Court's' constitutional right to review a case where there is an apparent conflict of interest between these two powers. The Government's defence was that the case made by The Corner House and CAAT for a judicial review (on the grounds that Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention has been breached) is unarguable. It claims that a UK court has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply this international treaty because the Director of the Serious Fraud Office would have taken the same decision even if it did violate the Convention. It asserts that, in any event, the Director's decision does not violate the Convention. It therefore believes 'there are no arguable domestic law grounds on which to challenge the decision'. (To read the Government's defence, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558470) Since the Serious Fraud Office terminated its investigation in December last year, the Department of Justice in the United States has launched a criminal inquiry into alleged corruption in BAE Systems' deals with Saudi Arabia and the company's compliance with US anti-corruption laws. The Department made an official request for 'mutual legal assistance' to the Home Office, which has delayed passing the request to the Serious Fraud Office. The SFO has important documentation relevant to an investigation gained from its inquiry into payments made to members of the Saudi royal family. In addition, a US pension fund and BAE shareholder started to sue past and present directors of BAE Systems in September this year over allegations that the company spent more than $2 billion bribing Saudi Arabian officials to win business. The fund charges the company officers with breaching their fiduciary duties. PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDER At the oral hearing, the two judges also considered our request for a Protective Costs Order: a limit or cap on the extent of the other side's legal costs that we should pay if we lose the case. We requested this Order on the grounds that the issues the case raises are of general public importance that should be resolved for the good of the public interest. As The Corner House and CAAT are small organisations, we can't risk such a liability and would have to stop the legal proceedings without such a Protective Costs Order. Through fund raising, including a comedy benefit night in September organised by British comedian activist Mark Thomas, we've managed to raise £70,000 -- an indication of the extent of public support for bringing the judicial review. Our lawyers thus requested a Protective Costs Order of £70,000, which was granted by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin. (To see a copy of the comedy benefit night programme, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558467), At the hearing, however, the Government requested that its risk of paying our legal costs also be limited to £70,000. Our legal team (solicitors Richard Stein and Jamie Beagent at Leigh Day & Co, and barristers David Pannick QC, Dinah Rose QC and Ben Jaffey of Blackstone Chambers, and Philippe Sands QC of Matrix Chambers) has taken on this case on a 'no-win, no fee' basis -- if we don't win, they don't get paid. If we do win, however, they will recover their legal costs from the other losing side. It is these costs that the Government wanted to limit to £70,000. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin refused the Government's request, implicitly rejecting the claim that the risk for bringing this court case is balanced equally between the two sides -- after all, the Government's legal team will get paid, win or lose. The judges agreed, however, that the amount of its costs that our legal team can claim from the losing side, if we win, should not be limited to the arbitrary sum proposed by the Government, but to 'solicitors' fees and a fee for a single advocate of junior counsel status that are no more than modest', a wording determined in a previous judicial review and protective costs order application brought by The Corner House in 2005 ('Corner House Double Victory on UK Government Department's Anti-Bribery Rules and Public Interest Litigation', http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=107362) The final details of these funding arrangements will be confirmed at the interim Directions Hearing later this year (see above). INTERNATIONAL MEDIA RESPONSE Here's just a selection of the media coverage of the decision to give permission for a judicial review. 1. 'High court to review halted BAE-Saudi investigation', Guardian Unlimited 2. 'TI welcomes judicial review of major foreign bribery case', Transparency International 3. 'Campaigners win judicial review of BAE arms case', The Independent, UK 4. 'Court agrees to challenges on BAE slush fund accusations', Euronews 5. 'Judicial review of BAE probe ordered', Daily Telegraph 6. 'Good to see that the judiciary still has teeth', Daily Telegraph Business Comment 7. 'Court challenge on Saudi 'bribes': Campaigners believe that the Government has acted illegally ', The Times, UK 8. 'UK court to hear BAE challenge', Al Jazeera television network 9. 'Blow for U.K. in BAE scandal: Court allows case against decision to drop investigation', The Hindu 10. 'U.K.-Saudi arms deal gets renewed scrutiny', International Herald Tribune 11. 'Group Wins Hearing on BAE-Saudi Probe', Houston Chronicle 12. 'BAE-Saudi Bribery Case Probe to Be Reviewed by Court', Bloomberg 13. 'High Court to review BAE-Saudi decision', Financial Times 1. 'High court to review halted BAE-Saudi investigation' By Haroon Siddique and agencies Friday November 9, 2007 Guardian Unlimited Anti-corruption campaigners today won permission to bring a high court challenge over the decision to end investigations into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Corner House argued that the UK government's decision to cut short an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was unlawful under the OECD's anti-bribery convention, which the UK signed in 1997. Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, said 'matters of concern and public importance' had been raised and the challenge 'cries out for a hearing'. The £20bn-plus al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia, which formed the focus of the legal challenge, was negotiated by the Thatcher government and involved the sale of Tornado jets made by BAE. Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia allegedly received a secret £1bn payment to facilitate the 1985 contract. The government has denied any breach of the convention and declared that it took the decision to terminate the investigation on the grounds of 'national security'. Tony Blair, the prime minister at the time the inquiry was halted, said that continuing the investigation would have jeopardised Saudi cooperation on counter-terrorism. The campaigners' lawyers argued that the SFO decision failed to take into account the national security implications of not proceeding with the investigation. They said that the government's willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption within Saudi Arabia had the potential to encourage more international resentment towards the UK. Notwithstanding those arguments, the campaigners contend that Article 5 of the OECD's anti-bribery convention precludes the UK from taking into account the potential effect of an investigation or prosecution on another state - even where there was concern over its impact on national security. The CAAT spokesman Symon Hill told Guardian Unlimited today's decision was brilliant 'for everyone who cares about justice in Britain'. 'It's great news for everyone thinking that BAE and the government should not be above the law that the rest of us have to follow,' he said. In September, the two countries announced a £4.4bn deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, also made by BAE, to the desert kingdom. The same month, the UK government was accused of obstructing an American criminal investigation into the al-Yamamah contract by the US inquiry team. --------------------------------------------------------- 2. 'TI welcomes judicial review of major foreign bribery case' Transparency International Press Release Berlin, 09 November 2007 Transparency International (TI) welcomes today's ruling by the British High Court allowing a full judicial review of the UK government's decision to terminate an investigation into allegations of bribery by BAE Systems on the Al Yamamah arms project in Saudi Arabia. 'We are encouraged and hopeful that commitments made under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention will prevail. This decision will help to ensure that the Convention is implemented and investigations are carried out when necessary', said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. The UK government's assertion that national security concerns overrode its commitment to prosecute foreign bribery created a loophole that other governments might readily use to sidestep the convention's provisions. Since the investigation was stopped by the Serious Fraud Office, TI has argued that Article Five of the convention forbids termination of a corruption investigation for any reason other than the merits of the case. The convention contains no provision for a national security exception. 'Hopefully, the judicial review will strengthen the case for effective prosecution of foreign bribery by the UK without political interference -- which is critical to restoring the UK's credibility in fighting international corruption', said Laurence Cockcroft, Chair of Transparency International UK. The OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention is an essential legal framework committing the world's leading industrialised nations to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials. Almost ten years after its adoption, there has been little or no enforcement in two-thirds of signatory countries. TI's 2007/ Progress Report on OECD Convention Enforcement issued in July, shows that more than half of 34 parties to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials are not enforcing the Convention or keeping their commitments. --------------------------------------------------------- 3. 'Campaigners win judicial review of BAE arms case' By David Prosser, Deputy Business Editor, The Independent, UK 10 November 2007 Anti-arms campaigners have won a judicial review of last year's decision by the Serious Fraud Office to end its investigations into the defence company BAE's contracts with Saudi Arabia. The judgment will be hugely embarrassing to the Government, which opposed the review and has consistently backed the SFO's decision to drop the case. Yesterday two High Court judges granted an application from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House for the right to mount a full challenge to the SFO, which in December last year dropped an inquiry into allegations that BAE had made secret payments to Saudi officials in order to secure a series of massive contracts. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin said the case involved 'matters of concern and public importance', and that the challenge 'cries out for a hearing'. The judges, who will now decide how to proceed with the case, likely to be a two-day hearing in the new year, said they were 'surprised' the Government had opposed the campaign groups' application. The SFO's decision last year prompted speculation that it had come under pressure from the Government, as ministers became concerned about a deterioration in relations with Saudi Arabia. The SFO's director, Robert Wardle, insisted he alone had taken the decision to drop the probe, begun in 2004, following advice that failing to do so might damage national security. Mr Wardle said he would have preferred to continue the investigation into BAE, which centred on the £50bn Al Yamamah arms deal signed in 1986, and believed it was progressing. However, Lord Goldsmith, then the Attorney General, said he thought there was little chance of a successful prosecution. In yesterday's hearing, lawyers for the campaign groups argued that the SFO had failed to consider the threat to national security posed by discontinuing the investigation, which, they said, could leave the UK open to additional resentment from international foes. The groups also argued that, in any case, the OECD's anti-bribery treaty, to which the UK is a signatory, did not allow countries to suspend such investigations for national security reasons. A judicial review of the SFO's decision will consider the legality of dropping the inquiry, rather than investigating the allegations against BAE. Nevertheless, the hearing will embarrass ministers, who had hoped to put the controversy behind them. It will also cause irritation at BAE, which is facing a separate inquiry into Al Yamamah from US regulators. Symon Hill, a spokesman for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said: 'This is brilliant news for all those who have campaigned against the influence that arms companies bring to bear on government.' A spokesman for BAE, which has always denied any wrongdoing, said yesterday: 'This is a matter for Corner House, the CAAT and the Government -- we were not a party to this case.' A spokesman for the SFO declined to comment. ---------------------------------------------------------- 4. 'Court agrees to challenges on BAE slush fund accusations' Euronews Britain's High Court has agreed to hear a challenge on the legality of the decision by the Serious Fraud Office to drop a corruption probe into Europe's biggest defence company, BAE Systems. The Serious Fraud Office called off a two-year investigation last December into the biggest export deal in British History, the huge Al Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. The then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was criticised after claiming the investigation would damage Britain's national security. Two pressure groups, Corner House Research and and the Campaign Against Arms Trade, want a judicial review. The allegations centre on a 61 billion euro deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk aircraft and other military hardware. BAE was accused of operating a slush fund to secure the contract, an accusation the company denies. BAE has since been contracted to provide 72 Eurofighter jets worth some 6.2 billion euros to Saudi Arabia. --------------------------------------------------------- 5. 'Judicial review of BAE probe ordered' By Katherine Griffiths 10 November 2007 Daily Telegraph Campaigners have won a judicial review into the dropping of the investigation of alleged bribery by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia. The High Court yesterday said the decision by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to end its two-year probe into Al-Yamamah, the £40bn arms contract between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia, might have been unlawful. It will now be subjected to a two-day judicial review hearing early in the New Year. If the judges then rule that the decision to stop the investigation was against the law, it is possible the SFO could restart the probe. The case involved allegations that BAE facilitated the payment of millions of pounds in bribes to senior Saudis in order to win Al-Yamamah, at the time the largest defence contract in history. The SFO dropped its investigation of Al-Yamamah last December after its director, Robert Wardle, decided that carrying on could hurt Britain's national security. He had received briefings from senior British officials warning that Saudi Arabia might cut off co-operation in the fight against terrorism if the SFO continued the investigation. A judicial review was called for by anti-arms groups The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT). As a signatory of the 1997 Anti-Bribery Convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Britain has a duty to investigate allegations of corruption, even if national security is at risk, the two pressure groups argued. Lord Justice Moses agreed, saying the issue 'cries out for a public hearing'. He added: 'It is in everyone's interest that a hearing take place.' Symon Hill of CAAT said: 'This is brilliant news for everyone who wants to see an end to arms companies' influence over government. We are one step further to the point when BAE Systems is no longer calling the shots.' Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said, 'The courts have shown no one is above the law -- not BAE Systems, not the Government, not Saudi princes. ' BAE denies any wrongdoing. A spokesman said of the judicial review: 'This was a matter between Corner House, CAAT and the Government'. The SFO is continuing to investigate BAE over its business in other countries, including South Africa, the Czech Republic and Tanzania. --------------------------------------------------------- 6. 'Good to see that the judiciary still has teeth' By Damian Reece Daily Telepgraph Business Comment Anyone who believes government, and its agencies, have become more overbearing than ever before under Labour can celebrate a significant legal decision. Judges have granted leave for a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into BAE Systems. It reveals a judiciary that still has teeth and is willing to put into practice, on our behalf, the principle of the separation of powers. As a check on executive power, the judicial review will examine how the SFO's decision came about and will go some way to burnishing the somewhat tarnished corporate reputation of the UK under Labour. --------------------------------------------------------- 7. 'Court challenge on Saudi 'bribes': Campaigners believe that the Government has acted illegally' The Times November 10, 2007 by Michael Evans, Defence Editor The controversial decision by the Serious Fraud Office to drop its investigation into bribery allegations involving BAE Systems and members of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family is to be put to the test in a High Court case. Ruling in favour of two pressure groups who yesterday sought an application for a judicial review of the decision, made in December last year, Lord Justice Moses said that 'matters of concern and public importance' had been raised. The challenge by Corner House Research, an anticorruption pressure group, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade 'cries out for a hearing', the judge said. The decision against the SFO reversed a ruling made by Mr Justice Collins in May, in which he said that the request for a judicial review was 'wholly unarguable'. The SFO had been investigating allegations of corruption against BAE for more than two years. It was alleged that Britain's biggest defence company had paid huge sums of money in bribes to certain members of the Saudi Royal Family in connection with the £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1990s, which included the sale of 72 Tornado aircraft. BAE has always denied any wrongdoing and has emphasised that the al-Yamamah contract was a government-to-government deal. When Robert Wardle, the SFO director, announced that the corruption investigation was being dropped, Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, said that if it had continued it would have damaged Britain's national security interests. Mr Blair said that Britain and Saudi Arabia shared key intelligence in the fight against international terrorists, and thousands of jobs were also at stake because the Saudis were threatening to pull out of a new deal to buy Typhoon Eurofighters to replace the ageing Tornados. In May Mr Justice Collins said that 'no state could be expected to take action which jeopardises the security of the State or the lives of its citizens'. However, Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin at the High Court, said it was in everybody's interest that there should be a full hearing. A spokesman for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade said: 'This is a great success for us. Our case is that the Government acted illegally.' Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, who has been highly critical of the SFO decision, said: 'This is a significant breakthrough and puts the Government on the spot.' Dinah Rose, QC, acting for the two pressure groups, argued that the SFO director misdirected himself in law by taking into account the 'irrelevant consideration' that continuing the investigation into BAE would risk prejudicing Saudi Arabia's cooperation on counter-terrorism issues, which would have an adverse effect on security. She said that under European anti-bribery laws, to which Britain is supposed to adhere, the Government was precluded from taking into account the potential effect of an investigation or prosecution on another state, even where there was concern about its impact on national security. Lord Justice Moses said: 'It seems to me in everybody's interest that there should be a full hearing.' The case will be heard after January 28 next year. --------------------------------------------------------- 8. 'UK court to hear BAE challenge' Al Jazeera television network Pressure groups will challenge the UK fraud office's decision to stop probing the BAE-Saudi deals [AP]. Britain's high court has agreed to hear a legal challenge to the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) called off a two-year investigation in December into the biggest export deal in British history. The case alleged that BAE ran a $126 million 'slush fund' to influence officials from Saudi Arabia as part of the Al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1980s. The deal saw BAE supply Tornado fighter jets and other military equipment, which Saudi Arabia paid for with oil. Tony Blair, British prime minister at the time, took responsibility earlier this year for halting the investigation, saying it threatened national security interests. However, lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Caat) and the anti-corruption group, Corner House Research, have now argued that the decision to stop the inquiry was unlawful under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) anti-bribery treaty. Eurofighter deal The full extent of the deal was never revealed but it was widely believed to be Britain's largest-ever export agreement. Saudi Arabia bought 72 Eurofighter Typhoons from BAE as recently as September [AP] As recently as September, Saudi Arabia signed a $8.84 billion agreement with Britain to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from BAE. After a brief hearing on Friday, the UK court gave the two pressure groups permission to seek a full judicial review of the SFO's decision. Lord Justice Alan Moses said that the case concerned 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing'. 'This closely involves the judicial process and the criminal justice system in this country of which the guardians are the judiciary and not the government,' he said. Swiss fulcrum Dinah Rose, a lawyer for Corner House and Caat, told the court that the inquiry was called off shortly after the SFO had obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Moses, sitting with Justice Stephen Irwin, said he was passing no comment on the arguments put forward by Caat and Corner House ahead of the full hearing. 'This is something that the judges are here to decide and in my view requires a full public hearing and consideration,' he said. BAE was not available for immediate comment, but has previously denied all accusations of wrong doing. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the US and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, has also denied that he profited from the deal. In the meantime, the US justice department is continuing its own investigation, which started in June and is likely to end in February, into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws. ---------------------------------------------------- 9. 'Blow for U.K. in BAE scandal: Court allows case against decision to drop investigation ' By Hasan Suroor The Hindu LONDON: In an embarrassing development for the British government, the High Court on Friday allowed two pressure groups to challenge its controversial decision to drop a criminal investigation into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms supplier, paid millions of pounds in secret commissions to win a £43-billion defence contract with Saudi Arabia in 1985. The court granted permission to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House Research to seek a judicial review of the Government's decision on grounds that the matter was of 'public importance.' Judges said it 'cries out for a hearing.' The ruling gave a new twist to the long-running controversy sparked by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, when, last December, he intervened to stop an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office claiming that it would have a 'devastating' effect on Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the 'war' against terrorism. 'Damage to ties' 'I think that had we proceeded with this investigation, it would have significantly materially damaged our relationship with Saudi Arabia....It would have done damage to a major strategic partnership right at the moment when we need that strategic partnership, in terms of Iraq and other issues. And all of that leaves aside the issue of the fact that we would have lost thousands of UK jobs,' he said responding to criticism that he had acted under pressure from the Saudi government. It was reported at the time that the Saudis had threatened to call off another multi-billion pound deal with BAE if the inquiry went ahead. Within months of the inquiry being dropped Saudi Arabia signed a deal with BAE to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets for about £4.4 billion. At the heart of the controversy was the allegation that BAE paid up to £1 billion to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former Saudi Ambassador to America, for his role in negotiating the contract, known as the Yamamah deal signed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Prince Bandar has denied receiving any 'improper' payments. BAE also says it was not involved in any wrong- doing. The groups, which brought the challenge, argued that there was no justification for scrapping the investigation even if national security was at risk. --------------------------------------------------------- 10. 'U.K.-Saudi arms deal gets renewed scrutiny' Bloomberg News, Reuters, The Associated Press International Herald Tribune LONDON: The British High Court on Friday ordered a full judicial review of the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The court agreed to hear a challenge on the decision to stop the inquiry, which was made in December 2006. The Serious Fraud Office called off a two-year investigation into what is possibly the biggest export transaction in British history, a weapons deal between the British and Saudi governments with a value estimated at £40 billion, or more than $80 billion. The investigation focused on BAE, which served as prime contractor and supplied Saudi Arabia with fighter jets. Two groups, Corner House Research and the Campaign Against Arms Trade, made the plea for the review. Corner House said the review was likely to last two days and be held in the winter. Tony Blair, prime minister when the inquiry was dropped, was criticized by political opponents after saying that Britain's national interests would be damaged if the Serious Fraud Office proceeded with its investigation. They said the decision went against the rule of law and accused the government of ceding to pressure from the Saudi royal family. The British government denied taking into account any commercial considerations in the decision. Such influence would violate rules of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of which Britain is a member. The two interest groups argue that Britain violated the rules. The OECD itself expressed 'serious concerns' about the termination of the investigation. The U.S. Justice Department is conducting an inquiry into BAE. The British government signed a secondary deal for BAE to supply Saudi Arabia with Eurofighter jets in September, at a price of £4.4 billion. Lord Justice Alan Moses said the case concerned 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing.' BAE made it clear it was not a party to the court hearing Friday. Scott Hailstone, the company's spokesman in London, said, 'Any questions should be directed to those parties.' BAE has denied making improper payments in connection to its dealings with Saudi Arabia. --------------------------------------------------------- 11. 'Group WinsHearing on BAE-Saudi Probe' By JANE WARDELL AP Business Writer (c) 2007 The Associated Press, 9 November 2007 Houston Chronicle LONDON - Britain's High Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems PLC in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade and the anti-corruption group Corner House Research argued that the decision to stop the inquiry was unlawful under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery treaty. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair took responsibility earlier this year for halting the probe by the Serious Fraud Office, saying the investigation threatened national security interests. Lord Justice Alan Moses said the case raised 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing.' 'This closely involves the judicial process and the criminal justice system in this country of which the guardians are the judiciary and not the government,' he said. Moses, sitting with Justice Stephen Irwin, said he was passing no comment on the arguments put forward by CAAT and Corner House ahead of the full hearing. 'This is something that the judges are here to decide and in my view requires a full public hearing and consideration,' he said. The Serious Fraud Office was investigating allegations that BAE ran a 60 million pound ($126 million) 'slush fund' offering sweeteners to officials from Saudi Arabia in return for lucrative contracts as part of the Al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1980s. BAE has denied the accusations. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the United States and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, has also denied that he profited from the deal. Al-Yamamah, meaning 'the dove,' was the name given to an agreement under which BAE supplied Tornado fighter jets and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia, which paid the British government with oil. The full extent of the deal was never revealed but it was widely believed to be Britain's largest-ever export agreement. The SFO's investigation was called off in December, and Blair told reporters in January that 'had we proceeded with this investigation it would have significantly materially damaged our relationship with Saudi Arabia, that that relationship is of vital importance for us fighting terrorism including here in this country.' Saudi Arabia subsequently signed a 4.43 billion British pound ($8.84 billion) agreement with Britain to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from BAE in September. Dinah Rose, a lawyer for Corner House and CAAT, told the court that the inquiry was called off shortly after the SFO had obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Philip Sales, a lawyer acting for the government, said that SFO Director Robert Wardle had made a decision based on the evidence provided by the government and would make the same decision again. 'The material that he was given to consider was so pressing in regard to national security that he would have taken the same decision no matter what the OECD convention,' said Sales. 'These matters have been looked at again and refreshed in the context of this litigation ... and the same view has been found,' he added. The U.S. Justice Department is continuing its own investigation, started in June, into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws. A hearing to settle some legal and cost issues will be held on the High Court case before the end of the year. The full challenge, which is expected to take two days, will be held in late January or early February. ----------------------------------------------------- 12. 'BAE-Saudi Bribery Case Probe to Be Reviewed by Court' By James Lumley and Emmet Oliver, November 9 2007 Bloomberg Britain's abandonment of a bribery investigation into BAE Systems Plc weapons deals that former Prime Minister Tony Blair said might damage relations with Saudi Arabia will be reviewed by London's High Court. An examination of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to end the probe is ``in the public interest,'' two judges said at a hearing today. The SFO called off its investigation of 43 billion pounds ($90 billion) of Saudi contracts with London- based BAE on Dec. 14, citing national security concerns. 'I don't think this is going to change the outcome of the original decision, but it will be an irritant for BAE to have the issues aired once again,' said Howard Wheeldon, a defense analyst at BGC Partners in London. Since the probe was dropped, BAE has won a 4.43 billion- pound contract to sell 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Saudi Arabia, whose King Abdullah last month made the first Saudi state visit to the U.K. in two decades. BAE, Europe's biggest arms maker, has denied wrongdoing throughout the three-year investigation. Shares of BAE fell 7 pence, or 1.4 percent, to 502.5 pence today. The stock has gained 18 percent this year, valuing the company at 17.6 billion pounds. Today's case was brought by two pressure groups, Campaign Against Arms Trade and Corner House, which claim SFO Director Robert Wardle didn't take into account a treaty obligation by Britain to prosecute corruption cases. They won the right for what is termed a judicial review. Heart of the Matter A review is of 'public importance' because it 'goes to the heart' of confidence in Britain's legal system, Lord Justice Alan Moses, one of the two judges hearing the application, said today. Moses said he was 'surprised' the U.K. government opposed the application for a judicial review. 'BAE was not a party to today's court hearing, which was a matter between Corner House, the CAAT and the Government,' said Scott Hailstone, a company's spokesman in London. 'Any questions should be directed to those parties.' A spokesman for U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had no immediate comment. Blair, Brown's predecessor, said on June 7 that the SFO corruption probe would have been disastrous for U.K. relations with Saudi Arabia had it gone ahead. 'I don't believe the investigation would have led anywhere except for the complete wreckage of a vital relationship for our country, quite apart from the fact that we would have lost thousands and thousands of British jobs,' he said at the time. A full hearing will take place next year. The High Court will examine the decision-making process used by the SFO. If the court finds against the public body, the authority can be ordered to reconsider the decision. The SFO would be allowed to draw the same conclusion provided all procedures are correctly followed. -------------------------------------------------- 13. 'High Court to review BAE-Saudi decision' By Michael Peel and Jimmy Burns Published: November 9 2007 21:44 | Last updated: November 9 2007 21:44 Financial Times Anti-corruption campaigners on Friday won their bid to mount a High Court challenge to the Serious Fraud Office's much-criticised decision to scrap the probe into alleged bribery of Saudi Arabian officials by BAE Systems, the arms company. Lord Justice Moses overturned an earlier High Court decision to throw out the challenge, ruling that the case raised questions of 'great public importance' around Britain's decision to drop a criminal investigation on national security grounds after pressure from Saudi officials. The ruling is the latest twist in a case whose international fall-out has dogged the government since the Serious Fraud Office announced the abandonment of its probe almost a year ago. Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, emphatically endorsed the need for the full airing of a case 'in which the courts and the legal systems are also closely concerned'. 'Plainly it cries out for a hearing,' he said. He said he was making no comment on the cogency of the campaigners' claim, which would 'undoubtedly face considerable difficulties'. Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade argue the government broke a key international anti-bribery treaty, which prohibits countries from scrapping investigations because of the harm they will potentially cause to relations with other states. The Serious Fraud Office denies the allegation. Lord Justice Moses outlined the 'hypothesis' that Saudi officials had threatened to withdraw intelligence co-operation with London, threatening 'British lives on British streets', rather than see 'one of their number being accused of bribery or involvement in corruption'. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington, has denied allegations that he received more than £1bn of secret payments from BAE in connection with the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal between London and Riyadh. Nick Hildyard, co-director of Corner House, said the court had shown that 'no one is above the law: not the government, not BAE, not Saudi princes'. 'The courts have recognised that this is of major public interest and national importance,' he said. The case -- which is due to be heard early next year -- is a potential political problem for Gordon Brown, who had hoped to put the BAE affair behind him after a big new arms deal was signed with Saudi Arabia this year. The case could reveal evidence that ministers and officials would have preferred to keep secret, at a time when they want to maintain good diplomatic relations with Riyadh. The High Court will examine the decision-making process used by the Serious Fraud Office. The court could then order the office to reconsider the decision. But the office would be allowed to draw the same conclusion if all procedures were correctly followed. 'I don't think this is going to change the outcome of the original decision, but it will be an irritant for BAE Systems to have the issues aired once again,' Howard Wheeldon, an analyst at BGC Partners in London, was quoted as saying by Bloomberg News. Dinah Rose, a lawyer for the two interest groups, told the court that the investigation was called off shortly after the Serious Fraud Office obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Philip Sales, a lawyer for the government, said that Robert Wardle, director of the Serious Fraud Office, had made the decision based on the evidence provided by the government and that he would make the same decision again. 'The material that he was given to consider was so pressing in regard to national security that he would have taken the same decision no matter what the OECD convention,' Sales said. _______________________________________________ The Corner House notification mailing list http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk To edit subscription details or unsubscribe, visit http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/notification-l To unsubscribe from this list via email, send a blank email to: notification-l-request at thecornerhouse.org.uk with the word unsubscribe in the message subject line. A message will be sent back asking for confirmation. _______________________________________________ From oishiksircar at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 23:07:25 2007 From: oishiksircar at gmail.com (OISHIK SIRCAR) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:37:25 -0600 Subject: [Commons-Law] Appeal to Left Front Partners to Withdraw from West Bengal State Government Message-ID: <62cba67a0711130937mb87963fw298b4121b51d430@mail.gmail.com> I urge everyone to respond to the Nandigram Massacre by signing this petition* Appeal to Left Front Partners to Withdraw from West Bengal State Government* To: The General Secretaries of Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), Communist Party of India (CPI), All India Forward Block (AIFB) Respected friends, We are horrified by the barbaric attack on the people of Nandigram by a veritable army of CPI(M) cadres and anti-social elements. In a clearly pre-planned move, co-ordinated with the West Bengal government, the CPI(M) is out to recapture what it identifies as lost territory, and to teach the people of Nandigram a lesson for originally resisting the acquisition of their lands for establishment of an SEZ. The ongoing atrocities, which includes the surrounding of Nandigram from all sides, penetration by armed brigades of CPI(M) cadres, widespread firing, looting, destruction and burning of homes and eviction of thousands of people all signify this absolutely fascist move. The attackers have erected road-blocks all around Nandigram and have physically assaulted and prevented human rights workers and social activists from entering Nandigram, and have also prevented the injured from getting medical attention. More disturbingly, the police has remained a silent spectator, suggesting direct abetment by the state government of West Bengal. These horrifying atrocities, which have given rise to a humanitarian crisis, are being committed by the CPI(M) in collusion with the state government, which is a government of Left parties like yours, and would become a permanent blot on the history of the Left movement in India. We have seen, and greatly appreciated, the courageous and pro-people stand your respective parties had taken after the 14th March massacre in Nandigram. Together with the outpouring of indignation and protests by all sections of the people, it was your constant pressure that made the West Bengal government back off from acquiring the land of Nandigram. At this critical juncture in front of the Left in India, when all the gains made by peoples' struggles and sacrifices in creating the Left Front is in danger of being lost by the unilateral and fascistic action of one party, we appeal to you to take a stand and clearly come out on the side of the poor and working people. We request you to condemn the actions of the CPI(M) and demand a halt to the atrocities in Nandigram, withdraw from the Left Front, withdraw your ministers from the West Bengal state cabinet and act in unison with the greater peoples' movement that is taking place around Nandigram and other mass struggles. The CPI(M) is already isolated from the people, it is up to you to isolate it from the Left Front. It is up to you stop these brutalities being inflicted on the people and to prevent the collapse of peoples' trust in the Left movement in India. History has put a great responsibility on your shoulders today, and we sincerely hope that you would take these actions which would express your long-standing commitment to the common people of India. *TO SIGN THIS PETITION PLEASE VISIT -- http://www.petitiononline.com/rspcpifb/petition.html * -- OISHIK SIRCAR Fellow in Reproductive & Sexual Health and Women's Rights Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 60 Harbord Street Room 016 B Toronto, ON M5S 3L1 oishiksircar at gmail.com oishik.sircar at utoronto.ca 416.876.7926 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071113/2d5a6a9a/attachment.html From rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com Fri Nov 16 13:00:10 2007 From: rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com (Rodney D Ryder) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:00:10 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Free Ryder Message-ID: <006a01c82822$8707e5e0$1b64a8c0@RodneyRyder> Dear Sir, I am surprised that you continue to post comments about this issues; without ever bothering to check the facts. First, the edition of the book on the Right to Information was a joint creation of the Publishers Editorial Board [which consisted of scholars like Prof. Sridhar] and Rodney D. Ryder. The Publishers inserted material allegedly authored by Prof. Sridhar. Second, the matter was [and remains] duly settled between the publishers and the professor. Please verify facts before making your claims or statements. I do urge you to withdraw or edit your post accordingly. In the meantime, please accept my best wishes and warm regards, Rodney D. Ryder Rodney D. Ryder Partner FoxMandal Little FM House A-9, Sector-9 Noida - 201301 National Capital Region Tel : + 91 120 4077612 [Direct] Tel : + 91 120 4305555/3919555 Fax: + 91-120-2542222 Hand phone + 91 9811013560 Website: www.foxmandallittle.com Please note my new email address: rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com Offices also at : Bangalore, Bhuvaneshwar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Dhaka, Hyderabad, Kolkata & Mumbai *************FoxMandal Little's E-mail Disclaimer ************* Confidentiality : This message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachments or disclose the contents to any other person. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071116/e4b433a9/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 15:23:41 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:23:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Sadanand Menon: From Mohenjodaro to Madhuri Dixit Message-ID: <908adbd0711160153w3cf5d0c7t67dd90ad8aec8d8e@mail.gmail.com> http://www.business-standard.com/general/printpage.php?autono=304401 Sadanand Menon: From Mohenjodaro to Madhuri Dixit CRITICALLY INCLINED Sadanand Menon / New Delhi November 16, 2007 The past few years, I have responded to several requests for keynote lectures reviewing 'a century of Indian dance' — a sort of a narrative of dance in India through the 20th century. It has made me reflect seriously on the time cycle applicable to Indian dances. Considering there is the fictitious Mohenjodaro 'Dancing Girl' at one end and Madhuri Dixit at the other, the very concept of a 'hundred years' of dance is artificial within the Indian context. The time frame of a mere 'century' does not sit well with a civilisation that is comfortable speaking only in millennial terms. Most readers will remember the news item, a month ago, of the Archaeological Survey of India's discovery — at Bhirrana, a Harappan site in Haryana's Fatehabad district — of a red potsherd with an engraving resembling the 'Dancing Girl,' the iconic bronze figurine of Mohenjodaro. While the bronze was found in the 1920s, the potsherd came up during ASI's excavations in 2004-05. A few hundred miles separate the two sites. ASI Archaeologist L S Rao claims, in Man and Environment (Volume XXXII, No.1, 2007), that the find belongs to the Mature Harappan period as, until now, "no parallel to the 'Dancing Girl' — in bronze or any other medium — was known". He writes, "The delineation [of the lines in the potsherd] is so true to the stance of the bronze that it appears the craftsmen of Bhirrana had first-hand knowledge of the former." This has revived the old bogey of imagining the Mohenjodaro figurine of a girl in a tribhangi posture as being that of an early Bharatanatyam dancer. Dancer/choreographer Chandralekha used to pooh-pooh this claim saying, "Look at any Indian woman standing in the market or at a bus stop; they have exactly the same posture. We don't call them dancers. It is just an attempt to invent an ancient origin for classical dance." Eminent archaeologist H D Sankalia had, in a conversation with her in 1980, accepted her doubt as genuine. It is this naïve, inventive interpretation of the past, combined with more conscious mystification of origins in Shiva's dance on Kailasa, which has relegated the discourse around dance to some sort of a speculative theology, simultaneously masking and obfuscating the politics and aesthetics of the 'body' that we inherited and the crisis of that 'body' in our times. No hundred-year-audit of dance will be comprehensible without looking at its material sources in the subcontinent during the 2,000 years before it. Suffice it to say, a large variety of dances and body practices flourished in pre-Natya Shastra (200 BC to 200 AD) societies. The interlinks and overlaps in these were obviously observed and codified within a rigorous, structured, semiotic grid by Bharata in Natya Shastra, with a grammar and a cognitive system which has survived to this day (as pointed out in Chandralekha's seminal paper, Militant Origins of Indian Dance, Social Scientist, 1980). Kapila Vatsysayan's Traditions of Indian Folk Dance (Indian Book Company, 1976) documents the impressive range, variety and diversity of the practice of dance at the micro- and macro-levels of the Indian subcontinent, most of which are connected to hunting and work practices, agricultural cycles, seasonal variations and fertility rituals. As a common, connected gestural language evolved at the upper and lower ends of the social spectrum, the practice of dance was not seen as separate from daily life, breathing techniques, attack/defence systems, therapeutic practices or the broader disciplines of architecture, poetry and music. While the dances of the 'folk' — adivasis, agricultural labourers, subalterns — stayed raw, robust, collective and energising, dance in temples and courts became increasingly individuated, decorative, esoteric and decadent. Towards mid-19th century, it was this form, practised in the rapidly decaying princely courts of India, which was reviled and proscribed within the logic of Protestant puritanism of the colonial masters. The charged, post-1920s' rhetoric around the 'Devadasi Abolition Act', initiated by newly Calvinised Indian elites, reflects all the confusions, ignorance, guilt and rage over the subject. The early decades of the 20th century saw a new need to connect nostalgically with the past. Considering the ruptures, gaps and erotic material within it that the new moralism found hard to accept, the only option was to invoke a past, as if there was a cohesive, linear and continuous flow of 5,000 years from the 'Dancing Girl' of Mohenjodaro to our times. This was false, for much of what we call 'traditional', was newly 'invented' between 1925 and 1970. As during the national liberation movement, it was inevitable that classical dances too would get co-opted in the post-independence nation-building project, to be successively projected as heritage and as art products both ambassadorial and market-friendly. Yet, it is ridiculous how our elite and our academics continue their chicanery, periodically reinventing a 'timeless' frame for our dances, forgetting the Einsteinian dictum that anything 'timeless' is in a 'time-warp'. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 12:11:35 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:11:35 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [A2k] 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available In-Reply-To: <864A3D6B-9C6B-4BDE-829E-826E9E558224@keionline.org> References: <864A3D6B-9C6B-4BDE-829E-826E9E558224@keionline.org> Message-ID: <908adbd0711162241t1cbc8acaief02b614e29ca009@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Manon Ress Date: Nov 16, 2007 9:54 PM Subject: [A2k] 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available To: a2k discuss list - -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Announcement 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available. http://public.resource.org/case_law_announcement.html WASHINGTON, D.C. / SEBASTOPOL, CA—November 14, 2007— Public.Resource.Org and Fastcase, Inc. announced today that they will release a large and free archive of federal case law, including all Courts of Appeals decisions from 1950 to the present and all Supreme Court decisions since 1754. The archive will be public domain and usable by anyone for any purpose. "The U.S. judiciary has allowed their entire work product to be locked up behind a cash register," said Carl Malamud, CEO of Public.Resource.Org. "Law is the operating system of our society and today's agreement means anybody can read the source for a substantial amount of case law that was previously unavailable." Fastcase, the leading developer of next-generation American legal research, has agreed to provide Public.Resource.Org with 1.8 million pages of federal case law. This is a marked departure for the online legal research industry, which traditionally has charged expensive subscription fees to access this information. "For eight years, Fastcase has been ahead of the market curve, working to democratize access to the law," said Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase, Inc. "At the same time, we have been advancing the science of search, combining the precision of traditional legal research with the simplicity of Web-based searches." Fastcase has reversed the traditional subscription model for lawyers, contracting directly with 11 state bar associations to make the national law library free for lawyers in their states. "Through this agreement with Public.Resource.Org, we are proud to expand our efforts beyond lawyers, and to make more of the law available to the general public at no cost," Walters said. The agreement calls for definitive paperwork approved by both parties within 30 days with Public.Resource.Org making developer snapshots of the archive available in early 2008. Public.Resource.Org is represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this transaction. The cases will be marked with a new Creative Commons mark —CC-Ø—that signals that there are no copyrights or other related rights attached to the content. This transaction represents a one-time purchase of a copy of data. This corpus will be integrated into the ongoing public services from organizations such as AltLaw and the Legal Information Institute, thus providing continuity of coverage into the future. Further announcements will be forthcoming on the availability of other case law, including Federal District and pre-1949 Appellate decisions. Public.Resource.Org intends to perform an initial transformation on the federal case law archive obtained from Fastcase using open source "star" mapping software, which will allow the insertion of markers that will approximate page breaks based on user-furnished parameters such as page size, margins, and fonts. "Wiki" technology will be used to allow the public to move around these "star" markers, as well as add summaries, classifications, keywords, alternate numbering systems for citation purposes, and ratings or "diggs" on opinions. Media Contacts Lisa Miller Carl Malamud Fleishman-Hillard/Fastcase, Inc. Public.Resource.Org +1.202.857.2209 +1.707.827.7290 lisa.miller at fleishman.com carl at media dot org About Fastcase Fastcase is the leading American provider of next-generation legal research, making the law accessible to more people by providing the national law library at a fraction of the cost of traditional companies. Using patented software that combines the best of legal research with the best of Web search, Fastcase helps busy legal professionals sift through the clutter, ranking the best cases first and enabling users to re-sort results to find answers fast. Founded in 1999, Fastcase has more than 275,000 paid subscribers from around the world. It is an American company based in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit www.fastcase.com. About Public.Resource.Org Public.Resource.Org was founded in 2007 to spearhead the creation of public works projects for the Internet. A 501(c)(3) registered public charity, Public.Resource.Org has worked across all three branches of the U.S. government to enhance the public domain. –1110– ************************************************************************ *** Manon Anne Ress manon.ress at keionline.org, 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 Il vaut mieux remuer une question, sans la décider, que la décider, sans la remuer. Pensées, essais, maximes et correspondance de J. Joubert p.249 http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-88671 Translation: It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 13:16:59 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:16:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Intellectual Property Board Bench to hear Novartis appeal Message-ID: <908adbd0711162346v6d03899ey304d3a0d8d91fa1b@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/17/stories/2007111753771500.htm National Intellectual Property Board Bench to hear Novartis appeal Special Correspondent Matter relates to rejection of pharma major's patent application Board Chairman can discharge functions of judicial or technical member Chandrasekaran excluded from Bench CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) here to constitute a Bench comprising its Chairman and Vice-Chairman to hear the appeals filed by Novartis AG against the rejection of its patent application. Passing orders on a petition filed by the pharmaceutical major, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice V. Ramasubramanian said the board should dispose of the statutory appeal as early as possibly after affording opportunities to all parties. Rejecting the objection raised by Natco Pharma Limited, the Bench said: "A plain reading of sub-section 3(a) of Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act clearly shows that the Chairman, who is deemed to be a judicial member, can discharge the functions of a judicial member or a technical member, as the case may be, either on the Bench to which he is appointed or to any other Bench." The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the board should always be regarded as judicial members irrespective of whether they were originally appointed technical members or judicial members. Referring to Additional Solicitor-General V. T. Gopalan's offer to constitute a Bench consisting of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the IPAB, as provided for under Section 84(3) (a) of the Act, the Bench said it was "permissible." It also recorded that senior counsel for Novartis AG, Shanthi Bhushan, had agreed to the proposal to end the impasse. P. S. Raman, senior counsel for Natco Pharma, had expressed doubt about the applicability of the provision and said it did not statutorily enable the Chairman, who was a judicial member, to discharge the functions of a technical member. The matter relates to the rejection of Novartis' application to patent its beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate by patent authorities. Though the statutory appeal against the rejection was originally filed before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, it was later transferred to the board after an IPAB Bench competent to hear the appeals was constituted. Novartis filed the present petition, taking exception to the presence of S. Chandrasekaran as the technical member of the Bench. It said he had filed an affidavit in the High Court in support of the patent authorities and, hence, would be biased against the company. As an alternative, the Centre came out with a proposal that the matter be heard by a Bench comprising the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, and thereby excluding Mr. Chandrasekaran. The proposal has now been accepted by the High Court. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 13:30:57 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:30:57 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?UPA_plans_nodal_centre_to_=91legal?= =?windows-1252?q?ly=92_snoop_on_your_phones?= Message-ID: <908adbd0711170000g375a1183kb8bedc95c3ec6887@mail.gmail.com> UPA plans nodal centre to 'legally' snoop on your phones RITU SARIN Posted online: Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST New Delhi, November 16 Instead of continuing with the existing system of telephone and telecommunication interception being done by individual service providers at the behest of intelligence and security agencies, the Government has initiated moves to set up a Rs 450-crore nodal centre for "lawful interception and monitoring." Setting up this "central monitoring centre" is one of the security-related actions taken by the Government for the telecom sector, as per the note drafted by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The project will be executed by the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT). At present, guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court permit eight intelligence/security agencies to conduct interception and monitoring of Government and private telephone services with due authorization of the Union/ State Home Secretary. A "Security Testing and Certificate Centre" has also been set up at IISc , Bangalore for security testing of all telecom equipment before induction into networks in India. From nirupillai at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:05:25 2007 From: nirupillai at gmail.com (Nirupama Pillai) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:05:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Submissions: Socio-Legal Review, National Law School of India University Message-ID: <720079100711170035g3ac4e4f5hed188cf7dc79371f@mail.gmail.com> The Law and Society Committee is an Activity-Based Committee, run by students of the National Law School and funded by the University. The Committee's area of interest is activity relating to the convergence of legal and social forces. Pursuant to this mandate, it includes reading groups, film screenings, talks and discussions as a means of academic engagement. 'Socio-Legal Review', a peer reviewed journal, is an initiative of the Committee that hopes to inspire socio-legal writing among members of the legal and social science community. It aims at exploring themes relating to the interface of law and society and providing a platform for students and young scholars. The Committee is keen to give 'law and society' an expansive interpretation, thereby keeping its basic criteria for contributions simply that of high academic merit, as long as there is a perceivable link. This would include not just writing about the role played by law in social change, or the role played by social dynamics in the formulation and implementation of law, but also writing that simply takes cognizance of legal institutions/ institutions of governance/administration, power structures in social commentary and so on. Through this effort, the journal also hopes to fill the lacunae relating to academic debate on socio-legal matters among law students. Socio-Legal Review has recently received a generous grant from Modern Law Review, United Kingdom to carry on its efforts, in spite of this being only its third year of publication. The first issue of 'Socio-Legal Review', published in 2005, carried the theme 'Law and Marginalisation'. The first issue included contributions from Shail Mayaram (Senior Fellow, Centre for Study of Developing Societies, Delhi), Sivamohan Sumathy (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka), apart from contributions from within the National Law School. Themes ranged from 'Poverty, Migration and Memory in the Mega-City', 'Migration and 'Displacement of Sri Lankan Tamil Women', 'Globalisation and the City-zen' to 'Reservation Policy of India and Rawls' Theory of Justice' and 'Contours of the Dalit Movement'. The second volume, published in 2006, has articles by W. T. Murphy (London School of Economics) and Rajeev Dhavan (Advocate, Supreme Court). As a theme was not imposed on contribution, writing ranged from subjects as varied as the pharmaceutical industry and patents to the impact of genetics on theories of crime and punishment. The third volume of the journal, released in August 2007, includes contributions by Dr. Fiona Kumari Campbell (Griffith University) and Dr. Narnia Bohler-Muller (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth), besides contributions from law students. The Socio-Legal Review welcomes contributions for its fourth volume to be released in 2008. Contributions may be in the form of articles or notes from the field.This year's Editorial Board has decided to continue with the policy of not imposing a theme. A contribution is eligible as long as fits in with the general mandate of the journal. Guidelines for Submission All contributions submitted to the journal should be original and should not be simultaneously considered by any other publication. Articles should not ordinarily exceed 8000 words.An abstract of about 300 words should accompany the contribution. Besides articles, the journal has a column on notes from the field, titled 'Law's Translations'. Notes from the Field are shorter pieces designed to provide a glimpse into a new legal strategy, political initiative or advocacy technique applied in the field, a current problem or obstacle faced in, legal reform or development work, or a new issue that has not yet received much attention and needs to be brought to light. This section is designed for the student researchers, legal practitioners, field staffers, and activists who often have the most significant insights to contribute, but the least time to write longer, scholarly articles. Notes from the field should not ordinarily exceed 5000 words. Contributions should be mailed in a soft copy to slr at nls.ac.in. The name of the author should not appear anywhere in the submission. Biographical information should be provided in a separate title page. The last date for submission is December 10, 2007. Submission is, however, on a rolling basis. Submissions made after this date may be considered for publication in the next volume. For any clarifications, please mail us at slr at nls.ac.in. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071117/0ddafaf1/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 10:47:15 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:47:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright notices to ISPs on the rise Message-ID: <908adbd0711182117n18db83adr4c6b128fb5bdb707@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/11/19/stories/2007111951240200.htm 'India has registered fastest increase in infringing activity' Piracy issues Over 15,000 notices have been issued till September this year. Monthly average notice has risen from 220 in 2006 to 1,682 L. N. Revathy Coimbatore, Nov. 18 Business Software Alliance has issued more than 15,000 notices to ISPs (Internet service providers) in India till September this year, on infringing activity. Sharing this information with Business Line, the BSA'a Vice-President and Regional Director (Asia), Mr Jeff Hardee, said the monthly average notice issuance has risen from 220 in 2006 to 1,682 this year. "India has registered the fastest increase in copyright infringement compared to any other country in Asia," he said and attributed it to "lack of awareness and total disregard of the copyright laws". Stating that it is important for people to understand that what they do on the Net "can and will be tracked" he said, "It is sad to note that India is not among those countries that have ratified the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Copyright Treaty." The WIPO Treaty has been ratified by 62 countries. "While the Government maintains that the Corporate Law is under review and the Bill would have to be passed incorporating the amendments, there is a need to understand that there are a large number of corporates here and they deserve good protection to transact online," Mr Hardee said. Cautioning about file sharing services, he said users invariably become victims of identity theft when they download files in the same location in which their personal data is stored, for, the data that is stored in the system gets uploaded without the users' knowledge. According to Tiversa study, about 12 million people are logged on to P2P networks worldwide at any given time and 450 million copies of P2P software downloaded. "While China and India compete for leadership in many sectors, including IT, China is surely acting upon illegal downloading. China's National Administration of Copyright (NAC) has launched a new campaign to crack down on illegal downloads of films, music, software and textbooks in the country's latest move to fight piracy," he said. The IDC study shows that the piracy rate in India has fallen to 71 per cent in 2006 compared to 82 per cent in China, "but the decline is very slow. China managed to bring the rate down by 10 per cent from 93 per cent in 2001 to 82 per cent last year, but India could manage only a 2 per cent reduction in three years," Mr Hardee said, emphasising the need for initiation of stringent measures to curb piracy. (India has registered a piracy loss of over a billion dollars in 2006 against $565 million in 2005.) Mr Hardee further pointed out that China was working on a plan to develop a software industry to bring down the piracy rate, while the orientation in India was only on export of software services. "China is keen to develop a local market. India has a huge domestic market due to the steep rise in PC penetration. The Government though is not giving much attention," he alleged. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu Business Line From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 11:14:33 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:14:33 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Imitate or die Message-ID: <908adbd0711182144ucdfcb27ycf9c958a3acf27e0@mail.gmail.com> http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/240737/ Imitate or die Posted online: Sunday , November 18, 2007 at 2358 hrs China makes computers, but imports most of its chips. India makes drugs, but copies almost all of the compounds; it writes software, but rarely owns the result. The bolder claims made for all three industries thus have a similar, hollow ring. They have flourished, but mostly on the back of other countries' technology. "We are not at the stage of Intel Inside," admits Arvind Atignal of Clinigene, a clinical-research firm, drawing his own analogy between desktops and drugs. "We are the keyboard, screens and peripherals." How much does this matter? Joseph Xie of SMIC, the Chinese chipmaker, spent seven years working inside Intel. Its strategy, he says, was simple: "get there first; make most of the money; let the second guy get the change." That is certainly one way to run a technology firm. But competing in that race is expensive and exhausting. Few of Intel's rivals still try to keep up with it, nanometre by nanometre. Countries of China's and India's heft and ambition cherish the idea of pushing back the limits of technology. But that push is risky, costly, frustrating work. Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? Seen in this light, India's generic drugmakers are models not laggards. They invest in just enough know-how to exploit the rest of the world's discoveries. Thanks to them, Indians enjoy some of the world's cheapest medicines. Under the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), India has ceded the right to free-ride on foreign advances. It now grants 20 years of patent protection to inventions hatched after 1995. In return, it hopes tighter laws will inspire Indians to new exploits in innovation, and reassure foreigners wary of inventing or making original products in the country. The tougher laws may yet succeed. A recent study by Bruce Abramson of the World Bank expresses high hopes. A 'patent chic' is already detectable in the country, he reports. He has even heard of Indian farmers calling lawyers in the hope of patenting their prize vegetables. But, as yet, the new regime has not proved its worth. Over 17,000 patent applications were filed in India in 2004-05, almost 40% more than the year before. But only 3,500 were by Indians. Of the 49 most prolific filers in the past decade, 44 are either foreign companies or subsidiaries. Of the five Indian firms, all are either government-sponsored institutes or generic-drug companies, which did fine before TRIPS. The new regime will be costly to run, if India takes it seriously. But the larger cost lies in the opportunities for unabashed imitation that India has now forgone. These lost opportunities might be quite big. Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255million a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. India could resolve not to invent another thing, and still prosper mightily. It does not even have to catch up with the world. As noted earlier, it has much to gain merely by catching up with itself. A report by the World Bank ("Unleashing India's Innovation") cast its eye over thousands of Indian enterprises—makers of drugs, foods, car parts and textiles, as well as metal-bashers and garment-weavers. In each industry, it found a thick clump of unproductive companies operating far behind the industry's vanguard. In garment-making, for example, the bank found a few highly productive companies, in which the value-added per worker was over Rs 6,00,000 in 2004. But in over 60% of the industry, that figure was less than Rs 1,00,000. Even ignoring the very best firms, the bank still found a leading group in each industry that was about five times as productive as the average firm. It calculates that India's national output could be 4.8 times bigger than it is if only enterprises were 'to absorb and use the knowledge that already exists in the economy'. Learning new tricks is not the only way to thrive. China may have stopped inventing things (clocks, compasses, gunpowder and so on) after the 15th century. But it did not stop growing. The empire found fresh farmland to till, using the same old techniques, and new markets to exploit, selling the same old goods. Likewise, today's China still enjoys a lot of scope for 'extensive' growth—doing more with more—as well as 'intensive' growth—doing more with less. "China is very much a top-line country," says Max von Zedtwitz of Tsinghua University in Beijing. Although outlays on R&D are increasing, many people still appreciate size over sophistication. In the scramble to grow, a company that sets aside precious resources for research can be at a disadvantage. By the time its investment pays off, the firm's rivals might be twice as big. "They will acquire you," says Max von Zedtwitz. Technological pursuits have opportunity costs. Other, perhaps more lucrative, uses can always be found for the resources so expended. That is why no firm in China is betting billions on a risky search for the next blockbuster drug. "If I had even a hundredth of that kind of money," says Hai Mi of WuXi PharmaTech, a pharmaceutical firm in Shanghai, "I'd rather open a restaurant." —(c) The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007 From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 17:22:21 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:22:21 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] GM food: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre Message-ID: <908adbd0711200352o7b57c05ds85b7c1071f116334@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/20/stories/2007112056461100.htm National GM food: notice to Centre Legal Correspondent New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a petition seeking a ban on the import and sale of genetically-modified processed food. A three-judge Bench issued notice on the petition filed by Gene Campaign and its president Suman Sahai challenging the August 23 notification granting exemption for such import. The petition contended that the exemption granted in favour of the food stuffs derived from living modified organisms would have adverse impact on health and environment. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 11:56:07 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:56:07 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Anti-piracy moves `hurt sales` Message-ID: <908adbd0711202226r3bd50d73j91c4aee1ab9a5db7@mail.gmail.com> Anti-piracy moves `hurt sales` Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson / London November 21, 2007 Retailers are urging the music industry to drop piracy protection for online downloads. Retailers are urging the music industry to drop piracy protection for online downloads after new figures showed the average Briton has bought fewer than three digital tracks in the past three years. Incompatible proprietary technologies, aimed at defeating rampant piracy in the digital music era, are instead "stifling growth and working against the consumer interest", said Kim Bayley, director-general of the Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA). Her warning comes as high street retailers and digital music specialists watch pre-Christmas sales trends nervously. The music industry makes at least 40 per cent of its revenues in the fourth quarter, but the traditional sales build-up has started later than usual. Although Leona Lewis — the X Factor winner backed by Simon Cowell's Syco label — this month notched up the highest first-week album sales for a debut artist, album volumes are down 11 per cent, or 12 million units, for the year to date, according to the Official UK Charts Company and Music Week. Recorded music companies had been "quick to complain" that the slide in CD sales had not been offset by growth in digital music, Bayley said, but their embrace of digital rights management (DRM) systems "might have added to the slow take-up of legal digital services". Just 150 million tracks have been downloaded legally in the UK over the past three years, she added. "Sadly, that amounts to an average of less than one 79p per download per head of population per year." The ERA's appeal comes as more companies experiment with the DRM-free MP3 format, following a pre-emptive challenge in February by Apple's Steve Jobs. Most recently, Universal Music this month began offering its classical and jazz catalogue in MP3 format. In April, EMI "unlocked" its catalogue, charging consumers a premium for DRM-free versions of its music on Apple's iTunes store, and has since signed deals with other digital retailers for MP3 files encoded at more than twice the quality of standard audio files. "There are certainly experiments, but there's still a certain element of resistance within the music industry," Bayley said. "At the moment, [DRM] just puts consumers off," she said, adding that confusion about formats was driving people toward illegal downloads. She cited research this month that found consumers were almost four times as likely to choose an MP3 file as a DRM-protected track when the two were offered alongside each other. The ERA, which represents high street retailers and online sites, said it was making the appeal now in the hope that music companies would drop DRM protections before the Christmas season and the January sales rise, when consumers load up the iPods they receive at Christmas. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 15:17:16 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:17:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Govt plans curbs on B2C e-trade Message-ID: <908adbd0711220147u780ee731w9d78a05537c4dac7@mail.gmail.com> Govt plans curbs on B2C e-trade Bipin Chandran Posted online: Thursday , November 22, 2007 at 0239 hrs New Delhi, Nov 21The government wants to bring goods sold over the Internet to customers in India under the purview of domestic retail trade guidelines. The move would impact a burgeoning business that has clocked a turnover of around Rs 2,500 crore in 2006-07 and is growing by over 30% annually. The proposal aims to block backdoor entry into the domestic retail market by international retail companies. Overseas companies account for most of the retail business on the Net. Government sources said it was currently possible for a company to sell products in India over the Internet without confirming to existing retail norms. For example, a global retail company could set up warehouses across India and sell its products online, which is a violation of existing norms. "The goods can be sourced and shipped from India. A retailer can set up a neighbourhood warehouse like it would in the case of a normal retail venture, and sell on the Internet to circumvent retail norms," said the official. Present retail norms allow single-brand retailers with 51% foreign investment. In the case of e-commerce, 100% foreign investment is permitted in business-to-business e-commerce, while no foreign equity is allowed in business-to-customer e-commerce ventures. In the case of wholesale trade, 100% FDI is permitted. Once implemented, Internet companies will not be able to sell goods in India unless they are single-brand products and the firm is 49% Indian-owned. The government is of the view that selling products on the Net, although billed and tax paid abroad, violates domestic retail guidelines. This would also mean that an Indian company selling goods in India over the Internet would not be allowed foreign investments. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 10:52:54 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:52:54 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Daily legal newsletter reloaded Message-ID: <908adbd0711262122y5e10e38ej1b8ac8840be8627@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, After a hiatus of 8 months, ,I'm restarting a free Daily legal newsletter service that I had previously been running. I've attached a copy of yesterday's newsletter as a sample. If you're interested in receiving this everyday, you can sign up for free at http://judis.openarchive.in/nletter/newsletter.php . Regards, Prashant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071127/9529cacb/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071127/9529cacb/attachment.htm From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 15:29:16 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:29:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Lawyers divided over web sites Message-ID: <908adbd0711280159l43d64de8v5f487889af8659cf@mail.gmail.com> *http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/28/stories/2007112853910500.htm* ------------------------------ [image: ICICI Bank] Kerala - Thiruvananthapuram * Lawyers divided over web sites * Sangeeth Kurian ------------------------------ * Web sites to contain personal details Legal profession will be more accessible * ------------------------------ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The move by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to allow lawyers to launch web sites with the approval of the respective State Bar Councils have evoked mixed reaction from the members of the Trivandrum Bar Association. The amended rules of professional conduct and ethics will permit lawyers to provide information on their address, standing, speciality and qualification on the web sites. The web sites in turn would be scrutinised and verified by the BCI and the State Council, which will have the right to take punitive action against the erring lawyers either on the basis of complaints or suo motu by the BCI. "The decision prima facie appears to be a welcome move," said Cherinniyur P. Sasidharan Nair, lawyer. "In this age of specialisation it is imperative that a litigant gets necessary information regarding the standing and credibility of the lawyer they are engaging. But there should also be a regular monitoring mechanism in the form of bar council to prevent lawyers from using the facility to exploit the client community through advertisments," said Mr. Sasidharan Nair. "A good lawyer gains reputation among the litigants through practise and not by marketing himself through web sites," said Dani J. Paul, lawyer. "The move will benefit only high-end lawyers. People with money and resources will always be in a better position to market themselves. This will lead to an unhealthy competition among lawyers," he said. But then there are lawyers like Sasthamangalam Ajith and Clarance Miranda who believe that launching web sites could actually make the legal profession "more transparent and accessible". They argue that a system of personal web sites and brochures were already in vogue in most of the European countries. "Personal web sites will help litigants to identify a good lawyer from the bad. The doors of justice will become more accessible to the clients. It will make the public aware about the area a lawyer is specialising in and his professional competency. This will eventually eliminate quacks, touts and middlemen," said Mr. Ajith. "The advantages of the move far outweigh the disadvantages," he said. "In this age of consumer sovereignty, the facility will enable clients to receive the best legal service at competitive cost. Moreover, it will also enable the bar council to rein in unprofessional practices," said Mr. Ajith. According to Mr. Miranda, the right to choose a lawyer of his/her choice was a principle within the meaning of the Article 22 of the Constitution. Also under Section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, an accused person had the right to be defended by a pleader of his/her choice. "For this the public will have to know what an lawyer is specialising in and the proficiency in the respective area. Only then will a litigant be able to entrust him with a case," said Mr. Miranda. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071128/8e3ff8fe/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 15:34:04 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:04 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Panchayati Raj system gets Microsoft solution called, ironically (humorously?), "Swaraj" Message-ID: <908adbd0711280204g39d6d250o3d0a8ab5badb661d@mail.gmail.com> *Date:28/11/2007* *URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/11/28/stories/2007112851680400.htm* ------------------------------ * Panchayati Raj system gets Microsoft solution * * SWARAJ to offer critical information on schemes, funds, and land * ------------------------------ * At the first Microsoft Government Leadership Summit today, Microsoft and the Uttar Pradesh Technical University signed an MoU to address training needs * ------------------------------ Kamal Narang *Growth ahead*: The Minister of Panchayati Raj, Youth Affairs and Sports, Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar, with Mr Ravi Venkatesan, Chairman and Corporate Vice-President, Microsoft India, during the "Microsoft Government Leadership Summit" in the Capital on Tuesday. — *Our Bureau * New Delhi, Nov. 27 The Union Minister for Panchayati Raj, Mr Mani Shankar Aiyer, today launched 'SWARAJ' an IT solution developed by Microsoft for managing the Panchayati Raj system in the country. The solution addresses the information needs for all the five tiers of Panchayati Raj namely the Ministry of Panchayati Raj at the central level, Panchayati Raj Departments at State level, District Administration at the District level, Panchayat Samitis/BDO at the Block and Gram Panchayats at the Village level. Microsoft has developed SWARAJ as a single integrated application, which can run in both connected and unconnected scenarios and can provide critical information on schemes, funds, land, and works besides baseline information to evolve Panchayat's infrastructure and human development indices. It has inbuilt analytical tools to study the data colleted on a real time basis. At the first Microsoft Government Leadership Summit today, Microsoft and the Uttar Pradesh Technical University (UPTU) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to address the training requirements of technology students in the State. The pact focuses on a training programme that would be open to all final year and pre-final year engineering students graduating in computer science and information science; as well as final year students of Masters in Computer Applications. The MoU signed with UPTU involves an engagement for six months starting December 2007. The terms of the agreement include a three-month-long training programme that would be open to all students in UPTU's member institutes. At the end of the training, one top student from each of the UPTU member colleges — selected through a test conducted at the end of the programme — would have an opportunity to apply for Microsoft student partner programme. In addition, the company has allocated 300 projects for UPTU under Microsoft's Academic Projects Program. Microsoft would also train 90 faculty members of UPTU on its latest technologies. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu Business Line -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071128/cadca5bc/attachment.html From stef.langmans at STUDENT.KULEUVEN.BE Fri Nov 30 17:47:58 2007 From: stef.langmans at STUDENT.KULEUVEN.BE (Stef Langmans) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:17:58 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for research cooperation: Public and Alternative Higher Education Practices Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/defanged-0 Size: 3427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071130/a78415e4/attachment.bin From oishiksircar at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 02:20:12 2007 From: oishiksircar at gmail.com (OISHIK SIRCAR) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:50:12 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Renewed Call for Articles/ InfoChange Agenda issue on Migration and Displacement In-Reply-To: <62cba67a0711061227i24e827d4n5311aafc9f7060b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <62cba67a0711061218y2754ff68lb4bf84b5ea7f3f0c@mail.gmail.com> <62cba67a0711061225k1a1a07e4t389183b19845a189@mail.gmail.com> <62cba67a0711061227i24e827d4n5311aafc9f7060b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62cba67a0711061250vbd3b0a2g6cebc233d476d082@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: I am writing to invite contributions to the next issue of *InfoChange Agenda *, a journal on issues of development and rights which I am guest-editing. This special issue is on 'Migration and Displacement'. *This is a renewed call for articles - so you are welcome to contribute even if you did contribute earlier.* *InfoChange Agenda *has been conceived as a quarterly dossier that informs civil society on crucial issues of sustainable development and social justice, diversity and pluralism issues that are being pushed into the margins. It is designed to enable concerned citizens in India/ South Asia to marshal salient information, facts, figures, perspectives and reportage, so that they *can* clarify *their* ideas and participate in drawing up their own agenda for a more equitable and sustainable world. You can find more information on Infochange Agenda and access the previous issues at www.infochangeindia.org ** The broad themes being explored in this issue tentatively are: *1. **Why People Move* *2. **The Legacy of 'Partition' and '**Independence**': How has it has shaped '** India **' today? * *3. **Refugees in **India**: Questions of Rights and Protection* *4. **The Internally Displaced in **India**: Exodus within Borders* *5. **Of Migration, Trafficking and Sex work: Confusing Conflations* *6. **Development or Displacement? Searching for answers beyond the rhetoric* *7. **Reporting Disasters: Displacement and Media Sensitivity* *8. **The case of 'Other' Indians: Biharis in **Assam** and 'Outsiders' in **Maharashtra * ** *9. **A Critique of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee's (UNHCR) work in **India*** *10. **Displaced Women and Children: Vulnerability Unlimited?* *11. **Displacement Dispatches* i. Narmada Valley ii. Orissa iii. Jharkhand iv. Indo-Bangladesh Border v. North-East India vi. Post-carnage Gujarat vii. Latur viii. Singur/ Nandigram *12. **Tsunami Tales* *13. **Homelessness and Displacement: Evictions in Metros* *14. **The Indian government's policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R)* Of course, the themes are not limited to these. You are welcome to write on anything else that is connected with the broader theme of 'Migration and Displacement'. Since InfoChange Agenda is not a purely academic journal, I request you to use minimal footnoting and make the pieces journalistic or feature-like. Please try and stick to a word limit of 2000-3000. The Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS) that publishes the journal will be happy to pay you a fee of Rs. 2000 for the contribution. So please do send your complete postal address along with the article. Can I also request you to maintain a deadline of December 30. This deadline is marginally extendable if you commit to contributing. You can email it to oishiksircar at gmail.com A contribution from you will not only be an invaluable addition to the compilation but also lend a huge amount of credibility to our work. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Warmly, Oishik Sircar -- OISHIK SIRCAR Fellow in Reproductive & Sexual Health and Women's Rights (LLM Programme) Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 60 Harbord Street Room 016 B Toronto, ON M5S 3L1 oishiksircar at gmail.com oishik.sircar at utoronto.ca 416.876.7926 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071106/a06603e5/attachment-0001.html From eddank at aya.yale.edu Thu Nov 8 00:23:16 2007 From: eddank at aya.yale.edu (Eddan Katz) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:53:16 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Yale ISP's Reputation Economies in Cyberspace Symposium - Dec. 8, 2007 Message-ID: <690442CC-DCB2-4438-B9AD-32583CE21A1A@aya.yale.edu> The Information Society Project at Yale Law School is proud to present Reputation Economies in Cyberspace. The symposium will be held on December 8, 2007 at Yale Law School in New Haven, CT. This event will bring together representatives from industry, government, and academia to explore themes in online reputation, community-mediated information production, and their implications for democracy and innovation. The symposium is made possible by the generous support of the Microsoft Corporation. A distinguished group of experts will map out the terrain of reputation economies in four panels: (1) Making Your Name Online; (2) Privacy and Reputation Protection; (3) Reputation and Information Quality; and (4) Ownership of Cyber-Reputation. See below for more detail on each panel; a current list of confirmed speakers is available at the conference website. Online registration is available now at: https://wems.worldtek.com/ RepEcon. There is a $95 registration fee, which includes lunch. Yale students and faculty and members of the press may attend for free. For more information, see: http://isp.law.yale.edu/reputation. SYMPOSIUM ON REPUTATION ECONOMIES IN CYBERSPACE Panel I: Making Your Name Online Moderator: Jack Balkin - Director, Information Society Project and Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School Panelists: Michel Bauwens - Founder, The Foundation for P2P Alternatives Rishab A. Ghosh - Senior Researcher, United Nations University -MERIT Auren Hofman - CEO, Rapleaf Hassan Masum - Senior Research Co-ordinator, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health Beth Noveck - Professor of Law and Director, Institute for Information Law and Policy, New York Law School This panel will discuss the shifts in the reputation economy that we are witnessing, largely the transition from accreditation to participatory, community-based modes of reputation management. Some of the questions the panel will address include: What are the new norms for cyber-reputation? How do these depart from offline models? How can reputation in one online system be transported to another? How do SNS and reputation connect? How do you bootstrap and cash out? Panel II: Privacy and Reputational Protection Moderator: Michael Zimmer - Microsoft Resident Fellow, Information Society Project and Post-Doctoral Associate, Yale Law School Panelists: Alessandro Acquisti - Assistant Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University Danielle Citron - Assistant Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law William McGeveran - Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Law School Dan Solove - Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School Jonathan Zittrain - Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Oxford University; Visiting Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies, Harvard Law School Cyber-reputation management is based on transactions in information that is often sensitive and is always contextual. This brings up many questions about the need to protect one's privacy and reputation within and outside this system. Some of the questions the panel will address: How is participation in cyber-reputation systems related to defamation and free speech? What happens when cyber-reputation spills over into offline activities and relationships like the political process, job applications, or school admissions? What happens when your second life meets your first? Requiring divulgence of real name or other personal data. Is opting out possible? Pending legislation on S495 - data security and privacy Panel III: Reputational Quality and Information Quality Moderator: Laura Forlano - Visiting Fellow, Information Society Project Panelists: Urs Gasser - Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Gallen Ashish Goel - Associate Professor, Management Science and Engineering and Computer Science, Stanford University Darko Kirovski - Senior Researcher, Microsoft Corporation Mari Kuraishi - President, Global Giving Foundation Vipul Ved Prakash - Founder, Cloudmark Evidently, unlike traditional reputation mechanisms that relied on small group acquaintances and formal accreditation mechanisms, the cyber-reputation economy is heavily mediated by technology. This raises the risk of breaking the delicate checks and balances that are necessary for the system to ensure quality of both the informational outcomes and the participants' reputation. This panel will try to highlight the connections between the way the new systems are built, and the outcome they produce. Some of the questions the panel will address: How can we assure quality in online reputation economies? What is the connections between the system design and the quality information? How good are the alternative accreditation mechanisms and how easy are they to hijack? How can employment discrimination law adapt to the realities of online reputation? Panel IV: Ownership of Cyber-Reputation Moderator: Eddan Katz - Executive Director, Information Society Project and Lecturer-in-Law and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School Panelists: John Clippinger - Senior Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School Eric Goldman - Assistant Professor and Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law faculty Bob Sutor - Vice President Open Source and Standards, IBM Corporation Mozelle Thompson - Thompson Strategic Consulting; (former FTC Commissioner) Rebecca Tushnet - Professor, Georgetown University Law Center The data and information that are collected in online reputation systems are both valuable and powerful. The ability to control this information, store it, process it, access it, and transport it are crucial to the maintenance of the reputation economy. This panel will address the important set of questions that concern the ownership of this information. Some questions the panel will address: Who owns one's online reputation? Who owns the metadata? How portable is online reputation? Should it be transportable from one system to another? How is reputation connected to the interoperability question? Should we have international standards governing reputation? From patrice at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 9 18:57:54 2007 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:27:54 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff Barrier to International Trade? Message-ID: <20071109132737.GA93800@xs4all.nl> No Apps for X-posting! ;-) NGO advocacy activism: A new form of Non-Tariff Barrier to International Trade? Pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bangalore, India, at the moment is a (criminal) case brought forward by the Indian textile firm "Fibre and Fabrics International" (FFI) against two Dutch advocay NGOs, Clean Clothes Campaign and the India Committee for the Netherlands (SKK and LIW, by their local acronyms) and their respective Internet access providers, XS4ALL and Antenna. FFI is a fairly large enterprise engaged in garment manufacture for export operating as a sub-contractor to major international clothing labels, among them G-Star, an originally Dutch multinational. SKK and LIW had both relayed internationally the seriously distressing findings of local unions and civil society groups regarding the working conditions at FFI's manufacturing plants, and this after the firm had managed to silence their local critics by judicial means. FFI was not best pleased with the subsequent international attention this attracted, especially since it seems to have lost it important clients in the process. Now eight Dutch citizens, staff persons and directors of the afore-mentioned organisations, are indicted and required to appear in person before court in India under a mendacious, but cleverly constructed 'cascade' of counts, starting with libel and diffamation, escalating into racism/ xenophobia carried on by means of 'cybercrime', and culminating in an alleged "international criminal conspiracy". The latter indictment constitutes an extraditable offense in the sense of international agreements on judicial co-operation between democratic, 'rule of law' states. The acting judge in Bangalore now needs only to sign an international arrest warrant for the real risk of deportation and delivery of these eight accused into an Indian remand jail to become effective. Though the Dutch minister of justice still would have the last word, he has not yet shown any inclination to take a stand in the matter, as he seems to see this as a purely private dispute. (The Dutch foreign ministry meanwhile, perceives the whole affair as profoundly embarassing - for the buoyant Dutch-Indian trade relations. ) This slightly out-of-control evolution of what in itself would be a fairly routinous incident in to-day's fiercely competitive globalised economy, might be taken as emblematic for the predicament into which the ongoing trend to lower procurement costs, and outsource and delocalise industrial production has landed us. Over the past two decades, scandals about labour and human rights abuses in emergent economies have been legion, national and international organisations, NGOs and CSOs have been locked in fierce struggles with corporates and governments big and small, and some, if slow, progress has been made to alleviate at least the worst excesses of labour exploitation. Both at the local and at the international level, agreements, rules and (self-)regulations have seen the light, and are being increasingly enforced and/ or respected. Yet the present case, and the case with India in general, is slightly different - and none too hopeful. For reasons both demographic and cultural, India, since the 'liberalisation' of its economy in the early 90s, has embarked in a mode of development that may be best characterised as elitist, with its entry into globalisation aimed to be at the upper reach rather than at a wholesale level, starting from below - as is the case with China. Unable to achieve this goal in glamorous sectors such as IT alone, India has been satisfied to allow the - very substanbtial - contribution of the more generic manufacturing sector (eg textiles) to be of a nature one can only very charitably describe as 'traditional', although it is in fact entirely, and scandalously so, at variance with 21st century ethical, or even plainly economic standards. As there is very little likelyhood that this dispensation will be altered - with the political will, and power, to do so obviously lacking, and this again, as opposed to the situation in China - India and its manufacturing export industry now are constantly confronted with damning, and very damaging, socio-political criticism, both at home and abroad. Today however, it would appear that the Indian authorities and (part of) the business community have embarked in response in a spirited, if probably desperate, rear-guard action to spite and harass their opponents. India's minister of commerce, Shri Kamal Nath, has let it known that criticism of the modus operandi of the Indian textile export industry amounts to 'hidden protectionism' by parties unhappy with India's competitive provess and resenting the consequent delocalisation of their own manufacturing base, theoretising a fresh form of NTBtIT (Non Tariff Barrier to International Trade in WTO-GATTese) in the same breath. He also let known his sentiment in none too diplomatic language to his counterparts in various countries harbouring pesky and in his view objectionable activist NGOs, and has now even called European trade commissionner Peter Mandelson to the rescue. His next step could be to take the dispute to the WTO itself, where one can only hope, but not entirely be sure of, that he will bring the house down in roars of laughter.However, in the meanwhile, the Indian government appears to be entirely supportive of the 'robust' judicial steps taken by firms such as FFI to safeguard their frayed reputation and interests. Rear-guard actions being what they are, their ultimate failure should not distract from the considerable, and sometime fatal damage they may inflict in the short term, to individuals, organisations, and principle of fairness the upholding of basic human rights. A perverse consequence, or as some would say, an intended effect, of increasing international judicial collaboration in the wake of the globalisation of trade, but also of crime, threats, and risks, is the opportunity to have annoying opponents or critics, first of governments, now apparently also of corporate interests, delivered into the hands of whatever 'rule of law' jurisdiction the powers that be deem appropriate to intimidate, harass, and possibly even eliminate them. This should not be allowed to happen. Check out for background (from the accuseds point of view): http://www.indianet.nl/ffie.html http://www.cleanclothes.org/ also for the latest scandal involving the Indian textile industry: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200590,00.html Googling for 'labour ('child-'), 'India' and 'textile(s) (industry) will unearth a further wealt of recent information... Patrice Riemens Firenze, November 9, 2007. From eye at ranadasgupta.com Mon Nov 12 11:58:33 2007 From: eye at ranadasgupta.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:28:33 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Music industry insider defends piracy Message-ID: <4737F22D.5080406@ranadasgupta.com> A guy who worked in the music industry and thought downloading was stealing eventually joined the pirates because he found the industry's tactics so reprehensible. Here he advises all to stop buying from major music companies and to campaign against the current IP regime. http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html From tato at paris.com Mon Nov 12 16:29:35 2007 From: tato at paris.com (Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:59:35 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? Message-ID: <20071112105929.53A8511581F@ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> French Information Resource Centre INVITES YOU TO Connexions – Indo-French Dialogue Series On Tuesday 13 November 2007, at 5.30 pm ======================================= India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? A lecture by Come Carpentier de Gourdon Come Carpentier de Gourdon is currently the Convener of the Editorial Board of the World Affairs Journal, a quarterly publication dedicated to international issues, sponsored by the Kapur Surya Foundation (a co-sponsor of the “World Public Forum for Dialogue of Civilisations”) New Delhi, India. He shares his time between India, France, Italy and Switzerland. He has lived and travelled in more than fifty countries on four continents. He is also a consultant to Indfos Industries Ltd, a company founded and chaired by the well known Indian philosopher, futurologist and engineer J.C. Kapur, and continues to provide consulting services to various other companies in India and Europe. The lecture will be followed by a reception =========================================== Venue: FIRC Library The Embassy of France in India 2 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi 110011 Tel: 30 41 0053/ E-mail:culture at fircdel.com -- Want an e-mail address like mine? Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071112/b75aceec/attachment-0001.html From patrice at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 13 11:49:08 2007 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:19:08 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] ITUC Online: India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses Message-ID: <20071113061857.GA4919@xs4all.nl> Folowing my post on advocay NGOs falling foul on G.o.I. INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC) ITUC Online 193/081107 India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses Brussels, 9 November 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC has criticised attempts by the Indian government and the Bangalore Court to cover up serious labour rights violations by the Fibre & Fabrics International company (FFI) and its subsidiary Jeans Knits Pvt. Ltd in the Indian city. Local labour rights groups, supported by the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) and the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) initially exposed the violations in 2005. Following this the company, which supplies jeans to Dutch company G-Star and other international brands, took legal action in 2006 in the Bangalooru Court to ban the local groups, CCC and ICN from speaking about or publicising the violations. The CCC subsequently took the issue up with under the procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, stressing that under the gagging order, local trade unions cannot operate freely, and that companies doing business with FFI cannot implement any credible form of corporate social responsibility programme. The company filed a court case against the CCC, ICN, internet provider Antenna and adsl supplier Xs4ALL, alleging that they engaged in cyber crime, defamation, racism and xenophobia. Refusing to accept that they be represented by a lawyer rather than travelling to India to appear in person, the Court issued summonses against the four organisations and seven individuals. A November 20 Court hearing is expected to determine whether the court will seek to issue international arrest warrants against the worker rights advocates. The initial report put forward by the CCC and ICN on the company based on interviews with workers from various parts of the company's operations, revealed physical and verbal abuse of the workforce, hazardous working conditions, lack of proper employment contracts, long working hours and non-payment of overtime entitlements. CCC and ICN did acknowledge that some improvements had been made by the company management after the release of the report, but that serious problems continued to exist. They called on the company to take part in a process of dialogue with the local trade union GATWU and independent mediators, however the company continued its court action instead. "All these people have done is to try to tell the truth about severe exploitation of the FFI workers," said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. "Instead of supporting the employer's use of the local Court to threaten labour rights supporters with criminal proceedings which carry penalties of up to two years in prison, the Indian government should be defending the rights of its own people and not leaving them at the mercy of unscrupulous bosses", he added. The ITUC understand that the attack on CCC and ICN has now been taken up with the Dutch and other European governments and the European Commission by the Indian Trade and Commerce Ministry, which has claimed that the publicity around this and similar cases is a "non-tariff barrier" to trade. In past years, India has consistently refused to allow any discussion at the WTO of violations of labour standards. "Actions of this kind can only hurt India's reputation as a country with which global companies can do business in confidence, and we urge them to put a stop to this unacceptable attack on freedom of speech and fundamental workers' rights", said Ryder. The ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories and has 305 national affiliates. Website: http://www.ituc-csi.org ; For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on: +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018. From rus.cahimb at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 14:31:03 2007 From: rus.cahimb at gmail.com (Ramanathan Muthaiah) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:01:03 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] : Missing Archives, Nov'2007 Message-ID: Hi, I cannot find, any of the topics listed below, in the archives section: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/ Am I missing something here ? /Ram On 11/13/07, 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. NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff Barrier to > International Trade? (Patrice Riemens) > 2. Music industry insider defends piracy (Rana Dasgupta) > 3. India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and > "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? > (Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato) > 4. ITUC Online: India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up > of Worker Rights Abuses (Patrice Riemens) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:27:37 +0100 > From: Patrice Riemens > Subject: [Commons-Law] NGO Advocacy as a new form of Non-tariff > Barrier to International Trade? > To: reader-list at sarai.net > Cc: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071109132737.GA93800 at xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > No Apps for X-posting! > ;-) > > > > NGO advocacy activism: A new form of Non-Tariff Barrier to International > Trade? > > > Pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bangalore, India, at > the moment is a (criminal) case brought forward by the Indian textile firm > "Fibre and Fabrics International" (FFI) against two Dutch advocay NGOs, > Clean Clothes Campaign and the India Committee for the Netherlands (SKK > and LIW, by their local acronyms) and their respective Internet access > providers, XS4ALL and Antenna. FFI is a fairly large enterprise engaged in > garment manufacture for export operating as a sub-contractor to major > international clothing labels, among them G-Star, an originally Dutch > multinational. SKK and LIW had both relayed internationally the seriously > distressing findings of local unions and civil society groups regarding > the working conditions at FFI's manufacturing plants, and this after the > firm had managed to silence their local critics by judicial means. FFI was > not best pleased with the subsequent international attention this > attracted, especially since it seems to have lost it important clients in > the process. > > Now eight Dutch citizens, staff persons and directors of the > afore-mentioned organisations, are indicted and required to appear in > person before court in India under a mendacious, but cleverly constructed > 'cascade' of counts, starting with libel and diffamation, escalating into > racism/ xenophobia carried on by means of 'cybercrime', and culminating in > an alleged "international criminal conspiracy". The latter indictment > constitutes an extraditable offense in the sense of international > agreements on judicial co-operation between democratic, 'rule of law' > states. The acting judge in Bangalore now needs only to sign an > international arrest warrant for the real risk of deportation and delivery > of these eight accused into an Indian remand jail to become effective. > Though the Dutch minister of justice still would have the last word, he > has not yet shown any inclination to take a stand in the matter, as he > seems to see this as a purely private dispute. (The Dutch foreign > ministry meanwhile, perceives the whole affair as profoundly embarassing - > for the buoyant Dutch-Indian trade relations. ) > > This slightly out-of-control evolution of what in itself would be a fairly > routinous incident in to-day's fiercely competitive globalised economy, > might be taken as emblematic for the predicament into which the ongoing > trend to lower procurement costs, and outsource and delocalise industrial > production has landed us. Over the past two decades, scandals about labour > and human rights abuses in emergent economies have been legion, national > and international organisations, NGOs and CSOs have been locked in fierce > struggles with corporates and governments big and small, and some, if > slow, progress has been made to alleviate at least the worst excesses of > labour exploitation. Both at the local and at the international level, > agreements, rules and (self-)regulations have seen the light, and are > being increasingly enforced and/ or respected. Yet the present case, and > the case with India in general, is slightly different - and none too > hopeful. > > For reasons both demographic and cultural, India, since the > 'liberalisation' of its economy in the early 90s, has embarked in a mode > of development that may be best characterised as elitist, with its entry > into globalisation aimed to be at the upper reach rather than at a > wholesale level, starting from below - as is the case with China. Unable > to achieve this goal in glamorous sectors such as IT alone, India has been > satisfied to allow the - very substanbtial - contribution of the more > generic manufacturing sector (eg textiles) to be of a nature one can only > very charitably describe as 'traditional', although it is in fact > entirely, and scandalously so, at variance with 21st century ethical, or > even plainly economic standards. As there is very little likelyhood that > this dispensation will be altered - with the political will, and power, to > do so obviously lacking, and this again, as opposed to the situation in > China - India and its manufacturing export industry now are constantly > confronted with damning, and very damaging, socio-political criticism, > both at home and abroad. > > Today however, it would appear that the Indian authorities and (part of) > the business community have embarked in response in a spirited, if > probably desperate, rear-guard action to spite and harass their opponents. > India's minister of commerce, Shri Kamal Nath, has let it known that > criticism of the modus operandi of the Indian textile export industry > amounts to 'hidden protectionism' by parties unhappy with India's > competitive provess and resenting the consequent delocalisation of their > own manufacturing base, theoretising a fresh form of NTBtIT (Non Tariff > Barrier to International Trade in WTO-GATTese) in the same breath. He also > let known his sentiment in none too diplomatic language to his > counterparts in various countries harbouring pesky and in his view > objectionable activist NGOs, and has now even called European trade > commissionner Peter Mandelson to the rescue. His next step could be to > take the dispute to the WTO itself, where one can only hope, but not > entirely be sure of, that he will bring the house down in roars of > laughter.However, in the meanwhile, the Indian government appears to be > entirely supportive of the 'robust' judicial steps taken by firms such as > FFI to safeguard their frayed reputation and interests. > > Rear-guard actions being what they are, their ultimate failure should not > distract from the considerable, and sometime fatal damage they may inflict > in the short term, to individuals, organisations, and principle of > fairness the upholding of basic human rights. A perverse consequence, or > as some would say, an intended effect, of increasing international > judicial collaboration in the wake of the globalisation of trade, but also > of crime, threats, and risks, is the opportunity to have annoying > opponents or critics, first of governments, now apparently also of > corporate interests, delivered into the hands of whatever 'rule of law' > jurisdiction the powers that be deem appropriate to intimidate, harass, > and possibly even eliminate them. > > This should not be allowed to happen. > > > Check out for background (from the accuseds point of view): > http://www.indianet.nl/ffie.html > http://www.cleanclothes.org/ > > also for the latest scandal involving the Indian textile industry: > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2200590,00.html > Googling for 'labour ('child-'), 'India' and 'textile(s) (industry) will > unearth a further wealt of recent information... > > > Patrice Riemens > Firenze, November 9, 2007. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:56:53 +0530 > From: Rana Dasgupta > Subject: [Commons-Law] Music industry insider defends piracy > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <4737F22D.5080406 at ranadasgupta.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > A guy who worked in the music industry and thought downloading was > stealing eventually joined the pirates because he found the industry's > tactics so reprehensible. Here he advises all to stop buying from major > music companies and to campaign against the current IP regime. > > http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:59:29 -0500 > From: "Dhritabrata BHATTACHARJYA Tato" > Subject: [Commons-Law] India and France : "Co-existence within > diversity" and "Didactic Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite > systems? > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071112105929.53A8511581F at ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" > > French Information Resource Centre > > INVITES YOU TO > > Connexions – Indo-French Dialogue Series > > > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, at 5.30 pm > ======================================= > > India and France : "Co-existence within diversity" and "Didactic > Assimilation". Convergent or Opposite systems? > > A lecture by > > Come Carpentier de Gourdon > > Come Carpentier de Gourdon is currently the Convener of the Editorial > Board of the World Affairs Journal, a quarterly publication dedicated to > international issues, sponsored by the Kapur Surya Foundation (a > co-sponsor of the “World Public Forum for Dialogue of > Civilisations”) New Delhi, India. He shares his time between India, > France, Italy and Switzerland. He has lived and travelled in more than > fifty countries on four continents. He is also a consultant to Indfos > Industries Ltd, a company founded and chaired by the well known Indian > philosopher, futurologist and engineer J.C. Kapur, and continues to > provide consulting services to various other companies in India and > Europe. > > > > The lecture will be followed by a reception > =========================================== > > Venue: FIRC Library > > The Embassy of France in India > > 2 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi 110011 > Tel: 30 41 0053/ E-mail:culture at fircdel.com > > -- > Want an e-mail address like mine? > Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071112/b75aceec/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:18:57 +0100 > From: Patrice Riemens > Subject: [Commons-Law] ITUC Online: India: Government Supports > Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses > To: reader-list at sarai.net > Cc: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <20071113061857.GA4919 at xs4all.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Folowing my post on advocay NGOs falling foul on G.o.I. > > > > INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC) > > ITUC Online > 193/081107 > > India: Government Supports Employer in Cover-up of Worker Rights Abuses > > > Brussels, 9 November 2007 (ITUC OnLine): The ITUC has criticised > attempts by the Indian government and the Bangalore Court to cover up > serious labour rights violations by the Fibre & Fabrics International > company (FFI) and its subsidiary Jeans Knits Pvt. Ltd in the Indian > city. Local labour rights groups, supported by the Clean Clothes > Campaign (CCC) and the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) > initially exposed the violations in 2005. Following this the company, > which supplies jeans to Dutch company G-Star and other international > brands, took legal action in 2006 in the Bangalooru Court to ban the > local groups, CCC and ICN from speaking about or publicising the violations. > > The CCC subsequently took the issue up with under the procedures of the > OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, stressing that under the > gagging order, local trade unions cannot operate freely, and that > companies doing business with FFI cannot implement any credible form of > corporate social responsibility programme. The company filed a court > case against the CCC, ICN, internet provider Antenna and adsl supplier > Xs4ALL, alleging that they engaged in cyber crime, defamation, racism > and xenophobia. Refusing to accept that they be represented by a lawyer > rather than travelling to India to appear in person, the Court issued > summonses against the four organisations and seven individuals. A > November 20 Court hearing is expected to determine whether the court > will seek to issue international arrest warrants against the worker > rights advocates. > > The initial report put forward by the CCC and ICN on the company based > on interviews with workers from various parts of the company's > operations, revealed physical and verbal abuse of the workforce, > hazardous working conditions, lack of proper employment contracts, long > working hours and non-payment of overtime entitlements. CCC and ICN did > acknowledge that some improvements had been made by the company > management after the release of the report, but that serious problems > continued to exist. They called on the company to take part in a > process of dialogue with the local trade union GATWU and independent > mediators, however the company continued its court action instead. > > "All these people have done is to try to tell the truth about severe > exploitation of the FFI workers," said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. > "Instead of supporting the employer's use of the local Court to threaten > labour rights supporters with criminal proceedings which carry penalties > of up to two years in prison, the Indian government should be defending > the rights of its own people and not leaving them at the mercy of > unscrupulous bosses", he added. > > The ITUC understand that the attack on CCC and ICN has now been taken up > with the Dutch and other European governments and the European > Commission by the Indian Trade and Commerce Ministry, which has claimed > that the publicity around this and similar cases is a "non-tariff > barrier" to trade. In past years, India has consistently refused to > allow any discussion at the WTO of violations of labour standards. > > "Actions of this kind can only hurt India's reputation as a country with > which global companies can do business in confidence, and we urge them > to put a stop to this unacceptable attack on freedom of speech and > fundamental workers' rights", said Ryder. > > The ITUC represents 168 million workers in 153 countries and territories > and has 305 national affiliates. Website: http://www.ituc-csi.org > ; > > For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on: +32 2 > 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 > ****************************************** > From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Nov 13 14:46:11 2007 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:16:11 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] : Missing Archives, Nov'2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862F1A1A-A5C6-4D33-BBC5-F5637ED10441@sarai.net> On 13-Nov-07, at 2:00 PM, Ramanathan Muthaiah wrote: > http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/ i am bit confused by the absence of the archive. will check with the tech backend. warmly jeebesh From notification-l at thecornerhouse.org.uk Tue Nov 13 20:12:32 2007 From: notification-l at thecornerhouse.org.uk (The Corner House - news and information) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:42:32 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Landmark ruling on BAE-Saudi corruption case Message-ID: <20505.217.146.126.96.1194960873.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> -- apologies for cross-postings -- -- please circulate to your networks -- The Corner House and CAAT win landmark ruling on BAE-Saudi corruption case This past Friday, 9 November 2007, just before 1 pm, two High Court judges granted permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House for a full judicial review hearing against the UK Government's decision in December last year to cut short a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Within minutes, the news was being broadcast on radio, television and the web around the world, from 'The Hindu' to the 'Houston Chronicle'. Both groups were inundated with requests for media interviews - including from media channels that we didn't think covered the news . . . Our apologies, therefore, that we're a little slow on this Monday morning in informing our own listserve of what has happened. Following is a summary of Friday's decision and updated background to the case, together with some of the major news articles. PERMISSION GRANTED At an oral hearing on Friday 9 November in the UK's High Court, Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, granted permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House to bring a full judicial review hearing against the UK Government's decision to cut short a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. (The Serious Fraud Office is a UK government department that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud.) Lawyers for the two groups had argued before the judges that the SFO decision was unlawful under the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention, which the UK signed in 1997 (To see our arguments, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558468). Lord Justice Moses agreed with the groups that the issue 'cries out for a public hearing' because it involves 'matters of concern and public importance'. He concluded that 'it is in everyone's interest that a full hearing take place' and was 'surprised' that the Government had opposed the application. The full judicial review hearing has now been scheduled for some time after 28 January 2008, and is expected to last two days. The hearing will not be about the allegations that BAE ran a 'slush fund' to influence officials for its Saudi arms contracts, but will consider only whether the UK Government acted illegally in ending the SFO investigation into these allegations. In the meantime (but probably before the end of this year), a further Court hearing will take place to prepare for the judicial review. At this Directions Hearing, the Court will rule on matters such as: - the extent to which the Government may apply for Public Interest Immunity Certificates to prevent public disclosure of the Government's evidence; - what, if any, safeguards may be put in place (such as the appointment of security cleared Special Advocates to represent CAAT and The Corner House in the event of any closed hearing); - the full details of the Protective Costs Order awarded to CAAT and The Corner House in principle (see below). Symon Hill of CAAT said of the judges' decision to give permission for a judicial review, 'This is brilliant news for everyone who wants to see an end to arms companies' influence over government and for everyone who cares about justice in Britain. We are now one step further today to the point when BAE Systems is no longer calling the shots.' Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said, 'Today is a great day for British justice. The courts have today shown that no one is above the law -- not BAE Systems, not the Government, not Saudi princes. There are key legal principles at stake here. At last this case will get the public hearing it deserves.' BACKGROUND TO LEGAL CHALLENGE Since the 1980s, the UK has supplied Tornado fighter and ground attack aircraft and associated products and support services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under a series of very high-value arms deals known as 'Al Yamamah' ('The Dove'). The aircraft sold to Saudi Arabia under the Al Yamamah deals are all manufactured by BAE, the UK's largest arms manufacturer. (For more information, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles and http://www.controlbae.org/) In 2004, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) initiated an investigation into alleged bribery and false accounting by BAE in relation to the Al Yamamah deals, including corruption offences since March 2002, when bribery of foreign officials became a crime in the UK. One allegation is that BAE ran a £60 million 'slush fund' for the personal benefit of Saudi royals. On 14th December 2006, the SFO announced that it was ending its investigation into these bribery allegations on the grounds that continuing the investigation might lead to Saudi Arabia withdrawing diplomatic cooperation with the UK on security and intelligence. Just four days later, on 18th December 2006, The Corner House and CAAT wrote to the UK Government arguing that the SFO decision was unlawful and should be reversed. The basis for the legal challenge hinges on the UK's obligations under the Anti-Bribery Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which Britain signed in 1997. Article 5 of the Convention expressly forbids the termination of corruption investigations on grounds other than the merits of the case being investigated. Signatory governments specifically undertake NOT to be influenced 'by the potential effect [of an investigation] upon relations with another State . . .' (For more on this, go to the 'Corruption' pages of The Corner House website: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/corruption/) Yet the SFO decision was purportedly based on considerations of potential damage to relations with Saudi Arabia, and thus to the UK's national security, if the BAE-Saudi arms deals investigation continued. The Saudis had reportedly stated that if the investigation was not called off, they would no longer supply the UK with intelligence information to the UK on terrorist threats. The source of this threat is believed to be Prince Bandar bin Sultan, one of those who allegedly received some of the 'corrupt payments' from BAE. At the 9th November oral hearing, Lord Justice Moses summarised the Saudi position as he understood it as a threat to withdraw intelligence cooperation with the UK, and thereby potentially see people in Britain blown up, rather than continue the investigation and see one of their number being accused of bribery or involvement in corruption. As the Government did not restore the SFO investigation, on 23rd February 2007, The Corner House and CAAT began an application for a judicial review -- a court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. However, the full application was delayed because it had been discovered that BAE had obtained CAAT's confidential and privileged legal advice about the judicial review. In a separate legal action brought by CAAT, BAE Systems revealed that it had been paying a private investigator to obtain information about CAAT. The group has since learnt that BAE has been involved in yet further unlawful acts of spying, and is continuing to pursue, through the Court process, answers to questions of how confidential information came into the hands of BAE. It was thus only on 18th April 2007 that CAAT and The Corner House were able to lodge their full grounds for an application for a judicial review. In May, a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins, considered these grounds, and the Government's response to them, which is to deny any breach of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention -- but to declare that the Government would have taken the decision to terminate the SFO investigation anyway, regardless of any violation of international law, in the interests of national security. According to the Government, compliance with the Convention 'was not . . . a critical or decisive matter' in making the decision. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, however, has no exemption for national security. On 29th May 2007, Judge Collins refused to grant permission for a judicial review hearing on the grounds that 'national security must always prevail', stating that the request was 'wholly unarguable'. The groups appealed this decision, resulting in the November oral hearing. The decision by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin to give the go-head for the judicial review overturns this refusal. In granting permission for the judicial review, Lord Justice Moses stressed that the issue was closely concerned with the legal system in this country that 'judges have to protect'. He was referring to the controversial overlap of powers in the UK between the Attorney General (the chief legal adviser to the Government who ultimately decides whether to go ahead with a prosecution or not) and the Executive (or the government). Lord Justice Moses was asserting the Court's' constitutional right to review a case where there is an apparent conflict of interest between these two powers. The Government's defence was that the case made by The Corner House and CAAT for a judicial review (on the grounds that Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention has been breached) is unarguable. It claims that a UK court has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply this international treaty because the Director of the Serious Fraud Office would have taken the same decision even if it did violate the Convention. It asserts that, in any event, the Director's decision does not violate the Convention. It therefore believes 'there are no arguable domestic law grounds on which to challenge the decision'. (To read the Government's defence, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558470) Since the Serious Fraud Office terminated its investigation in December last year, the Department of Justice in the United States has launched a criminal inquiry into alleged corruption in BAE Systems' deals with Saudi Arabia and the company's compliance with US anti-corruption laws. The Department made an official request for 'mutual legal assistance' to the Home Office, which has delayed passing the request to the Serious Fraud Office. The SFO has important documentation relevant to an investigation gained from its inquiry into payments made to members of the Saudi royal family. In addition, a US pension fund and BAE shareholder started to sue past and present directors of BAE Systems in September this year over allegations that the company spent more than $2 billion bribing Saudi Arabian officials to win business. The fund charges the company officers with breaching their fiduciary duties. PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDER At the oral hearing, the two judges also considered our request for a Protective Costs Order: a limit or cap on the extent of the other side's legal costs that we should pay if we lose the case. We requested this Order on the grounds that the issues the case raises are of general public importance that should be resolved for the good of the public interest. As The Corner House and CAAT are small organisations, we can't risk such a liability and would have to stop the legal proceedings without such a Protective Costs Order. Through fund raising, including a comedy benefit night in September organised by British comedian activist Mark Thomas, we've managed to raise £70,000 -- an indication of the extent of public support for bringing the judicial review. Our lawyers thus requested a Protective Costs Order of £70,000, which was granted by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin. (To see a copy of the comedy benefit night programme, go to: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=558467), At the hearing, however, the Government requested that its risk of paying our legal costs also be limited to £70,000. Our legal team (solicitors Richard Stein and Jamie Beagent at Leigh Day & Co, and barristers David Pannick QC, Dinah Rose QC and Ben Jaffey of Blackstone Chambers, and Philippe Sands QC of Matrix Chambers) has taken on this case on a 'no-win, no fee' basis -- if we don't win, they don't get paid. If we do win, however, they will recover their legal costs from the other losing side. It is these costs that the Government wanted to limit to £70,000. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin refused the Government's request, implicitly rejecting the claim that the risk for bringing this court case is balanced equally between the two sides -- after all, the Government's legal team will get paid, win or lose. The judges agreed, however, that the amount of its costs that our legal team can claim from the losing side, if we win, should not be limited to the arbitrary sum proposed by the Government, but to 'solicitors' fees and a fee for a single advocate of junior counsel status that are no more than modest', a wording determined in a previous judicial review and protective costs order application brought by The Corner House in 2005 ('Corner House Double Victory on UK Government Department's Anti-Bribery Rules and Public Interest Litigation', http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=107362) The final details of these funding arrangements will be confirmed at the interim Directions Hearing later this year (see above). INTERNATIONAL MEDIA RESPONSE Here's just a selection of the media coverage of the decision to give permission for a judicial review. 1. 'High court to review halted BAE-Saudi investigation', Guardian Unlimited 2. 'TI welcomes judicial review of major foreign bribery case', Transparency International 3. 'Campaigners win judicial review of BAE arms case', The Independent, UK 4. 'Court agrees to challenges on BAE slush fund accusations', Euronews 5. 'Judicial review of BAE probe ordered', Daily Telegraph 6. 'Good to see that the judiciary still has teeth', Daily Telegraph Business Comment 7. 'Court challenge on Saudi 'bribes': Campaigners believe that the Government has acted illegally ', The Times, UK 8. 'UK court to hear BAE challenge', Al Jazeera television network 9. 'Blow for U.K. in BAE scandal: Court allows case against decision to drop investigation', The Hindu 10. 'U.K.-Saudi arms deal gets renewed scrutiny', International Herald Tribune 11. 'Group Wins Hearing on BAE-Saudi Probe', Houston Chronicle 12. 'BAE-Saudi Bribery Case Probe to Be Reviewed by Court', Bloomberg 13. 'High Court to review BAE-Saudi decision', Financial Times 1. 'High court to review halted BAE-Saudi investigation' By Haroon Siddique and agencies Friday November 9, 2007 Guardian Unlimited Anti-corruption campaigners today won permission to bring a high court challenge over the decision to end investigations into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Corner House argued that the UK government's decision to cut short an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was unlawful under the OECD's anti-bribery convention, which the UK signed in 1997. Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, said 'matters of concern and public importance' had been raised and the challenge 'cries out for a hearing'. The £20bn-plus al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia, which formed the focus of the legal challenge, was negotiated by the Thatcher government and involved the sale of Tornado jets made by BAE. Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia allegedly received a secret £1bn payment to facilitate the 1985 contract. The government has denied any breach of the convention and declared that it took the decision to terminate the investigation on the grounds of 'national security'. Tony Blair, the prime minister at the time the inquiry was halted, said that continuing the investigation would have jeopardised Saudi cooperation on counter-terrorism. The campaigners' lawyers argued that the SFO decision failed to take into account the national security implications of not proceeding with the investigation. They said that the government's willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption within Saudi Arabia had the potential to encourage more international resentment towards the UK. Notwithstanding those arguments, the campaigners contend that Article 5 of the OECD's anti-bribery convention precludes the UK from taking into account the potential effect of an investigation or prosecution on another state - even where there was concern over its impact on national security. The CAAT spokesman Symon Hill told Guardian Unlimited today's decision was brilliant 'for everyone who cares about justice in Britain'. 'It's great news for everyone thinking that BAE and the government should not be above the law that the rest of us have to follow,' he said. In September, the two countries announced a £4.4bn deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, also made by BAE, to the desert kingdom. The same month, the UK government was accused of obstructing an American criminal investigation into the al-Yamamah contract by the US inquiry team. --------------------------------------------------------- 2. 'TI welcomes judicial review of major foreign bribery case' Transparency International Press Release Berlin, 09 November 2007 Transparency International (TI) welcomes today's ruling by the British High Court allowing a full judicial review of the UK government's decision to terminate an investigation into allegations of bribery by BAE Systems on the Al Yamamah arms project in Saudi Arabia. 'We are encouraged and hopeful that commitments made under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention will prevail. This decision will help to ensure that the Convention is implemented and investigations are carried out when necessary', said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. The UK government's assertion that national security concerns overrode its commitment to prosecute foreign bribery created a loophole that other governments might readily use to sidestep the convention's provisions. Since the investigation was stopped by the Serious Fraud Office, TI has argued that Article Five of the convention forbids termination of a corruption investigation for any reason other than the merits of the case. The convention contains no provision for a national security exception. 'Hopefully, the judicial review will strengthen the case for effective prosecution of foreign bribery by the UK without political interference -- which is critical to restoring the UK's credibility in fighting international corruption', said Laurence Cockcroft, Chair of Transparency International UK. The OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention is an essential legal framework committing the world's leading industrialised nations to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials. Almost ten years after its adoption, there has been little or no enforcement in two-thirds of signatory countries. TI's 2007/ Progress Report on OECD Convention Enforcement issued in July, shows that more than half of 34 parties to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials are not enforcing the Convention or keeping their commitments. --------------------------------------------------------- 3. 'Campaigners win judicial review of BAE arms case' By David Prosser, Deputy Business Editor, The Independent, UK 10 November 2007 Anti-arms campaigners have won a judicial review of last year's decision by the Serious Fraud Office to end its investigations into the defence company BAE's contracts with Saudi Arabia. The judgment will be hugely embarrassing to the Government, which opposed the review and has consistently backed the SFO's decision to drop the case. Yesterday two High Court judges granted an application from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House for the right to mount a full challenge to the SFO, which in December last year dropped an inquiry into allegations that BAE had made secret payments to Saudi officials in order to secure a series of massive contracts. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin said the case involved 'matters of concern and public importance', and that the challenge 'cries out for a hearing'. The judges, who will now decide how to proceed with the case, likely to be a two-day hearing in the new year, said they were 'surprised' the Government had opposed the campaign groups' application. The SFO's decision last year prompted speculation that it had come under pressure from the Government, as ministers became concerned about a deterioration in relations with Saudi Arabia. The SFO's director, Robert Wardle, insisted he alone had taken the decision to drop the probe, begun in 2004, following advice that failing to do so might damage national security. Mr Wardle said he would have preferred to continue the investigation into BAE, which centred on the £50bn Al Yamamah arms deal signed in 1986, and believed it was progressing. However, Lord Goldsmith, then the Attorney General, said he thought there was little chance of a successful prosecution. In yesterday's hearing, lawyers for the campaign groups argued that the SFO had failed to consider the threat to national security posed by discontinuing the investigation, which, they said, could leave the UK open to additional resentment from international foes. The groups also argued that, in any case, the OECD's anti-bribery treaty, to which the UK is a signatory, did not allow countries to suspend such investigations for national security reasons. A judicial review of the SFO's decision will consider the legality of dropping the inquiry, rather than investigating the allegations against BAE. Nevertheless, the hearing will embarrass ministers, who had hoped to put the controversy behind them. It will also cause irritation at BAE, which is facing a separate inquiry into Al Yamamah from US regulators. Symon Hill, a spokesman for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said: 'This is brilliant news for all those who have campaigned against the influence that arms companies bring to bear on government.' A spokesman for BAE, which has always denied any wrongdoing, said yesterday: 'This is a matter for Corner House, the CAAT and the Government -- we were not a party to this case.' A spokesman for the SFO declined to comment. ---------------------------------------------------------- 4. 'Court agrees to challenges on BAE slush fund accusations' Euronews Britain's High Court has agreed to hear a challenge on the legality of the decision by the Serious Fraud Office to drop a corruption probe into Europe's biggest defence company, BAE Systems. The Serious Fraud Office called off a two-year investigation last December into the biggest export deal in British History, the huge Al Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. The then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was criticised after claiming the investigation would damage Britain's national security. Two pressure groups, Corner House Research and and the Campaign Against Arms Trade, want a judicial review. The allegations centre on a 61 billion euro deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk aircraft and other military hardware. BAE was accused of operating a slush fund to secure the contract, an accusation the company denies. BAE has since been contracted to provide 72 Eurofighter jets worth some 6.2 billion euros to Saudi Arabia. --------------------------------------------------------- 5. 'Judicial review of BAE probe ordered' By Katherine Griffiths 10 November 2007 Daily Telegraph Campaigners have won a judicial review into the dropping of the investigation of alleged bribery by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia. The High Court yesterday said the decision by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to end its two-year probe into Al-Yamamah, the £40bn arms contract between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia, might have been unlawful. It will now be subjected to a two-day judicial review hearing early in the New Year. If the judges then rule that the decision to stop the investigation was against the law, it is possible the SFO could restart the probe. The case involved allegations that BAE facilitated the payment of millions of pounds in bribes to senior Saudis in order to win Al-Yamamah, at the time the largest defence contract in history. The SFO dropped its investigation of Al-Yamamah last December after its director, Robert Wardle, decided that carrying on could hurt Britain's national security. He had received briefings from senior British officials warning that Saudi Arabia might cut off co-operation in the fight against terrorism if the SFO continued the investigation. A judicial review was called for by anti-arms groups The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT). As a signatory of the 1997 Anti-Bribery Convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Britain has a duty to investigate allegations of corruption, even if national security is at risk, the two pressure groups argued. Lord Justice Moses agreed, saying the issue 'cries out for a public hearing'. He added: 'It is in everyone's interest that a hearing take place.' Symon Hill of CAAT said: 'This is brilliant news for everyone who wants to see an end to arms companies' influence over government. We are one step further to the point when BAE Systems is no longer calling the shots.' Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said, 'The courts have shown no one is above the law -- not BAE Systems, not the Government, not Saudi princes. ' BAE denies any wrongdoing. A spokesman said of the judicial review: 'This was a matter between Corner House, CAAT and the Government'. The SFO is continuing to investigate BAE over its business in other countries, including South Africa, the Czech Republic and Tanzania. --------------------------------------------------------- 6. 'Good to see that the judiciary still has teeth' By Damian Reece Daily Telepgraph Business Comment Anyone who believes government, and its agencies, have become more overbearing than ever before under Labour can celebrate a significant legal decision. Judges have granted leave for a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into BAE Systems. It reveals a judiciary that still has teeth and is willing to put into practice, on our behalf, the principle of the separation of powers. As a check on executive power, the judicial review will examine how the SFO's decision came about and will go some way to burnishing the somewhat tarnished corporate reputation of the UK under Labour. --------------------------------------------------------- 7. 'Court challenge on Saudi 'bribes': Campaigners believe that the Government has acted illegally' The Times November 10, 2007 by Michael Evans, Defence Editor The controversial decision by the Serious Fraud Office to drop its investigation into bribery allegations involving BAE Systems and members of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family is to be put to the test in a High Court case. Ruling in favour of two pressure groups who yesterday sought an application for a judicial review of the decision, made in December last year, Lord Justice Moses said that 'matters of concern and public importance' had been raised. The challenge by Corner House Research, an anticorruption pressure group, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade 'cries out for a hearing', the judge said. The decision against the SFO reversed a ruling made by Mr Justice Collins in May, in which he said that the request for a judicial review was 'wholly unarguable'. The SFO had been investigating allegations of corruption against BAE for more than two years. It was alleged that Britain's biggest defence company had paid huge sums of money in bribes to certain members of the Saudi Royal Family in connection with the £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1990s, which included the sale of 72 Tornado aircraft. BAE has always denied any wrongdoing and has emphasised that the al-Yamamah contract was a government-to-government deal. When Robert Wardle, the SFO director, announced that the corruption investigation was being dropped, Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, said that if it had continued it would have damaged Britain's national security interests. Mr Blair said that Britain and Saudi Arabia shared key intelligence in the fight against international terrorists, and thousands of jobs were also at stake because the Saudis were threatening to pull out of a new deal to buy Typhoon Eurofighters to replace the ageing Tornados. In May Mr Justice Collins said that 'no state could be expected to take action which jeopardises the security of the State or the lives of its citizens'. However, Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin at the High Court, said it was in everybody's interest that there should be a full hearing. A spokesman for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade said: 'This is a great success for us. Our case is that the Government acted illegally.' Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, who has been highly critical of the SFO decision, said: 'This is a significant breakthrough and puts the Government on the spot.' Dinah Rose, QC, acting for the two pressure groups, argued that the SFO director misdirected himself in law by taking into account the 'irrelevant consideration' that continuing the investigation into BAE would risk prejudicing Saudi Arabia's cooperation on counter-terrorism issues, which would have an adverse effect on security. She said that under European anti-bribery laws, to which Britain is supposed to adhere, the Government was precluded from taking into account the potential effect of an investigation or prosecution on another state, even where there was concern about its impact on national security. Lord Justice Moses said: 'It seems to me in everybody's interest that there should be a full hearing.' The case will be heard after January 28 next year. --------------------------------------------------------- 8. 'UK court to hear BAE challenge' Al Jazeera television network Pressure groups will challenge the UK fraud office's decision to stop probing the BAE-Saudi deals [AP]. Britain's high court has agreed to hear a legal challenge to the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) called off a two-year investigation in December into the biggest export deal in British history. The case alleged that BAE ran a $126 million 'slush fund' to influence officials from Saudi Arabia as part of the Al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1980s. The deal saw BAE supply Tornado fighter jets and other military equipment, which Saudi Arabia paid for with oil. Tony Blair, British prime minister at the time, took responsibility earlier this year for halting the investigation, saying it threatened national security interests. However, lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Caat) and the anti-corruption group, Corner House Research, have now argued that the decision to stop the inquiry was unlawful under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) anti-bribery treaty. Eurofighter deal The full extent of the deal was never revealed but it was widely believed to be Britain's largest-ever export agreement. Saudi Arabia bought 72 Eurofighter Typhoons from BAE as recently as September [AP] As recently as September, Saudi Arabia signed a $8.84 billion agreement with Britain to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from BAE. After a brief hearing on Friday, the UK court gave the two pressure groups permission to seek a full judicial review of the SFO's decision. Lord Justice Alan Moses said that the case concerned 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing'. 'This closely involves the judicial process and the criminal justice system in this country of which the guardians are the judiciary and not the government,' he said. Swiss fulcrum Dinah Rose, a lawyer for Corner House and Caat, told the court that the inquiry was called off shortly after the SFO had obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Moses, sitting with Justice Stephen Irwin, said he was passing no comment on the arguments put forward by Caat and Corner House ahead of the full hearing. 'This is something that the judges are here to decide and in my view requires a full public hearing and consideration,' he said. BAE was not available for immediate comment, but has previously denied all accusations of wrong doing. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the US and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, has also denied that he profited from the deal. In the meantime, the US justice department is continuing its own investigation, which started in June and is likely to end in February, into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws. ---------------------------------------------------- 9. 'Blow for U.K. in BAE scandal: Court allows case against decision to drop investigation ' By Hasan Suroor The Hindu LONDON: In an embarrassing development for the British government, the High Court on Friday allowed two pressure groups to challenge its controversial decision to drop a criminal investigation into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms supplier, paid millions of pounds in secret commissions to win a £43-billion defence contract with Saudi Arabia in 1985. The court granted permission to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House Research to seek a judicial review of the Government's decision on grounds that the matter was of 'public importance.' Judges said it 'cries out for a hearing.' The ruling gave a new twist to the long-running controversy sparked by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, when, last December, he intervened to stop an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office claiming that it would have a 'devastating' effect on Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the 'war' against terrorism. 'Damage to ties' 'I think that had we proceeded with this investigation, it would have significantly materially damaged our relationship with Saudi Arabia....It would have done damage to a major strategic partnership right at the moment when we need that strategic partnership, in terms of Iraq and other issues. And all of that leaves aside the issue of the fact that we would have lost thousands of UK jobs,' he said responding to criticism that he had acted under pressure from the Saudi government. It was reported at the time that the Saudis had threatened to call off another multi-billion pound deal with BAE if the inquiry went ahead. Within months of the inquiry being dropped Saudi Arabia signed a deal with BAE to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets for about £4.4 billion. At the heart of the controversy was the allegation that BAE paid up to £1 billion to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former Saudi Ambassador to America, for his role in negotiating the contract, known as the Yamamah deal signed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Prince Bandar has denied receiving any 'improper' payments. BAE also says it was not involved in any wrong- doing. The groups, which brought the challenge, argued that there was no justification for scrapping the investigation even if national security was at risk. --------------------------------------------------------- 10. 'U.K.-Saudi arms deal gets renewed scrutiny' Bloomberg News, Reuters, The Associated Press International Herald Tribune LONDON: The British High Court on Friday ordered a full judicial review of the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The court agreed to hear a challenge on the decision to stop the inquiry, which was made in December 2006. The Serious Fraud Office called off a two-year investigation into what is possibly the biggest export transaction in British history, a weapons deal between the British and Saudi governments with a value estimated at £40 billion, or more than $80 billion. The investigation focused on BAE, which served as prime contractor and supplied Saudi Arabia with fighter jets. Two groups, Corner House Research and the Campaign Against Arms Trade, made the plea for the review. Corner House said the review was likely to last two days and be held in the winter. Tony Blair, prime minister when the inquiry was dropped, was criticized by political opponents after saying that Britain's national interests would be damaged if the Serious Fraud Office proceeded with its investigation. They said the decision went against the rule of law and accused the government of ceding to pressure from the Saudi royal family. The British government denied taking into account any commercial considerations in the decision. Such influence would violate rules of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of which Britain is a member. The two interest groups argue that Britain violated the rules. The OECD itself expressed 'serious concerns' about the termination of the investigation. The U.S. Justice Department is conducting an inquiry into BAE. The British government signed a secondary deal for BAE to supply Saudi Arabia with Eurofighter jets in September, at a price of £4.4 billion. Lord Justice Alan Moses said the case concerned 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing.' BAE made it clear it was not a party to the court hearing Friday. Scott Hailstone, the company's spokesman in London, said, 'Any questions should be directed to those parties.' BAE has denied making improper payments in connection to its dealings with Saudi Arabia. --------------------------------------------------------- 11. 'Group WinsHearing on BAE-Saudi Probe' By JANE WARDELL AP Business Writer (c) 2007 The Associated Press, 9 November 2007 Houston Chronicle LONDON - Britain's High Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of the government's decision to stop an investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems PLC in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Lawyers for the Campaign Against Arms Trade and the anti-corruption group Corner House Research argued that the decision to stop the inquiry was unlawful under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery treaty. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair took responsibility earlier this year for halting the probe by the Serious Fraud Office, saying the investigation threatened national security interests. Lord Justice Alan Moses said the case raised 'a question of great public importance' and 'cries out for a hearing.' 'This closely involves the judicial process and the criminal justice system in this country of which the guardians are the judiciary and not the government,' he said. Moses, sitting with Justice Stephen Irwin, said he was passing no comment on the arguments put forward by CAAT and Corner House ahead of the full hearing. 'This is something that the judges are here to decide and in my view requires a full public hearing and consideration,' he said. The Serious Fraud Office was investigating allegations that BAE ran a 60 million pound ($126 million) 'slush fund' offering sweeteners to officials from Saudi Arabia in return for lucrative contracts as part of the Al-Yamamah arms deal in the 1980s. BAE has denied the accusations. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the United States and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, has also denied that he profited from the deal. Al-Yamamah, meaning 'the dove,' was the name given to an agreement under which BAE supplied Tornado fighter jets and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia, which paid the British government with oil. The full extent of the deal was never revealed but it was widely believed to be Britain's largest-ever export agreement. The SFO's investigation was called off in December, and Blair told reporters in January that 'had we proceeded with this investigation it would have significantly materially damaged our relationship with Saudi Arabia, that that relationship is of vital importance for us fighting terrorism including here in this country.' Saudi Arabia subsequently signed a 4.43 billion British pound ($8.84 billion) agreement with Britain to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from BAE in September. Dinah Rose, a lawyer for Corner House and CAAT, told the court that the inquiry was called off shortly after the SFO had obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Philip Sales, a lawyer acting for the government, said that SFO Director Robert Wardle had made a decision based on the evidence provided by the government and would make the same decision again. 'The material that he was given to consider was so pressing in regard to national security that he would have taken the same decision no matter what the OECD convention,' said Sales. 'These matters have been looked at again and refreshed in the context of this litigation ... and the same view has been found,' he added. The U.S. Justice Department is continuing its own investigation, started in June, into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws. A hearing to settle some legal and cost issues will be held on the High Court case before the end of the year. The full challenge, which is expected to take two days, will be held in late January or early February. ----------------------------------------------------- 12. 'BAE-Saudi Bribery Case Probe to Be Reviewed by Court' By James Lumley and Emmet Oliver, November 9 2007 Bloomberg Britain's abandonment of a bribery investigation into BAE Systems Plc weapons deals that former Prime Minister Tony Blair said might damage relations with Saudi Arabia will be reviewed by London's High Court. An examination of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to end the probe is ``in the public interest,'' two judges said at a hearing today. The SFO called off its investigation of 43 billion pounds ($90 billion) of Saudi contracts with London- based BAE on Dec. 14, citing national security concerns. 'I don't think this is going to change the outcome of the original decision, but it will be an irritant for BAE to have the issues aired once again,' said Howard Wheeldon, a defense analyst at BGC Partners in London. Since the probe was dropped, BAE has won a 4.43 billion- pound contract to sell 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Saudi Arabia, whose King Abdullah last month made the first Saudi state visit to the U.K. in two decades. BAE, Europe's biggest arms maker, has denied wrongdoing throughout the three-year investigation. Shares of BAE fell 7 pence, or 1.4 percent, to 502.5 pence today. The stock has gained 18 percent this year, valuing the company at 17.6 billion pounds. Today's case was brought by two pressure groups, Campaign Against Arms Trade and Corner House, which claim SFO Director Robert Wardle didn't take into account a treaty obligation by Britain to prosecute corruption cases. They won the right for what is termed a judicial review. Heart of the Matter A review is of 'public importance' because it 'goes to the heart' of confidence in Britain's legal system, Lord Justice Alan Moses, one of the two judges hearing the application, said today. Moses said he was 'surprised' the U.K. government opposed the application for a judicial review. 'BAE was not a party to today's court hearing, which was a matter between Corner House, the CAAT and the Government,' said Scott Hailstone, a company's spokesman in London. 'Any questions should be directed to those parties.' A spokesman for U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had no immediate comment. Blair, Brown's predecessor, said on June 7 that the SFO corruption probe would have been disastrous for U.K. relations with Saudi Arabia had it gone ahead. 'I don't believe the investigation would have led anywhere except for the complete wreckage of a vital relationship for our country, quite apart from the fact that we would have lost thousands and thousands of British jobs,' he said at the time. A full hearing will take place next year. The High Court will examine the decision-making process used by the SFO. If the court finds against the public body, the authority can be ordered to reconsider the decision. The SFO would be allowed to draw the same conclusion provided all procedures are correctly followed. -------------------------------------------------- 13. 'High Court to review BAE-Saudi decision' By Michael Peel and Jimmy Burns Published: November 9 2007 21:44 | Last updated: November 9 2007 21:44 Financial Times Anti-corruption campaigners on Friday won their bid to mount a High Court challenge to the Serious Fraud Office's much-criticised decision to scrap the probe into alleged bribery of Saudi Arabian officials by BAE Systems, the arms company. Lord Justice Moses overturned an earlier High Court decision to throw out the challenge, ruling that the case raised questions of 'great public importance' around Britain's decision to drop a criminal investigation on national security grounds after pressure from Saudi officials. The ruling is the latest twist in a case whose international fall-out has dogged the government since the Serious Fraud Office announced the abandonment of its probe almost a year ago. Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, emphatically endorsed the need for the full airing of a case 'in which the courts and the legal systems are also closely concerned'. 'Plainly it cries out for a hearing,' he said. He said he was making no comment on the cogency of the campaigners' claim, which would 'undoubtedly face considerable difficulties'. Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade argue the government broke a key international anti-bribery treaty, which prohibits countries from scrapping investigations because of the harm they will potentially cause to relations with other states. The Serious Fraud Office denies the allegation. Lord Justice Moses outlined the 'hypothesis' that Saudi officials had threatened to withdraw intelligence co-operation with London, threatening 'British lives on British streets', rather than see 'one of their number being accused of bribery or involvement in corruption'. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington, has denied allegations that he received more than £1bn of secret payments from BAE in connection with the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal between London and Riyadh. Nick Hildyard, co-director of Corner House, said the court had shown that 'no one is above the law: not the government, not BAE, not Saudi princes'. 'The courts have recognised that this is of major public interest and national importance,' he said. The case -- which is due to be heard early next year -- is a potential political problem for Gordon Brown, who had hoped to put the BAE affair behind him after a big new arms deal was signed with Saudi Arabia this year. The case could reveal evidence that ministers and officials would have preferred to keep secret, at a time when they want to maintain good diplomatic relations with Riyadh. The High Court will examine the decision-making process used by the Serious Fraud Office. The court could then order the office to reconsider the decision. But the office would be allowed to draw the same conclusion if all procedures were correctly followed. 'I don't think this is going to change the outcome of the original decision, but it will be an irritant for BAE Systems to have the issues aired once again,' Howard Wheeldon, an analyst at BGC Partners in London, was quoted as saying by Bloomberg News. Dinah Rose, a lawyer for the two interest groups, told the court that the investigation was called off shortly after the Serious Fraud Office obtained search orders for Swiss bank accounts. 'That was the point at which the acute pressure seems to have been applied,' she said. Philip Sales, a lawyer for the government, said that Robert Wardle, director of the Serious Fraud Office, had made the decision based on the evidence provided by the government and that he would make the same decision again. 'The material that he was given to consider was so pressing in regard to national security that he would have taken the same decision no matter what the OECD convention,' Sales said. _______________________________________________ The Corner House notification mailing list http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk To edit subscription details or unsubscribe, visit http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/notification-l To unsubscribe from this list via email, send a blank email to: notification-l-request at thecornerhouse.org.uk with the word unsubscribe in the message subject line. A message will be sent back asking for confirmation. _______________________________________________ From oishiksircar at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 23:08:09 2007 From: oishiksircar at gmail.com (OISHIK SIRCAR) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:38:09 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Appeal to Left Front Partners to Withdraw from West Bengal State Government Message-ID: <62cba67a0711130937mb87963fw298b4121b51d430@mail.gmail.com> I urge everyone to respond to the Nandigram Massacre by signing this petition* Appeal to Left Front Partners to Withdraw from West Bengal State Government* To: The General Secretaries of Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), Communist Party of India (CPI), All India Forward Block (AIFB) Respected friends, We are horrified by the barbaric attack on the people of Nandigram by a veritable army of CPI(M) cadres and anti-social elements. In a clearly pre-planned move, co-ordinated with the West Bengal government, the CPI(M) is out to recapture what it identifies as lost territory, and to teach the people of Nandigram a lesson for originally resisting the acquisition of their lands for establishment of an SEZ. The ongoing atrocities, which includes the surrounding of Nandigram from all sides, penetration by armed brigades of CPI(M) cadres, widespread firing, looting, destruction and burning of homes and eviction of thousands of people all signify this absolutely fascist move. The attackers have erected road-blocks all around Nandigram and have physically assaulted and prevented human rights workers and social activists from entering Nandigram, and have also prevented the injured from getting medical attention. More disturbingly, the police has remained a silent spectator, suggesting direct abetment by the state government of West Bengal. These horrifying atrocities, which have given rise to a humanitarian crisis, are being committed by the CPI(M) in collusion with the state government, which is a government of Left parties like yours, and would become a permanent blot on the history of the Left movement in India. We have seen, and greatly appreciated, the courageous and pro-people stand your respective parties had taken after the 14th March massacre in Nandigram. Together with the outpouring of indignation and protests by all sections of the people, it was your constant pressure that made the West Bengal government back off from acquiring the land of Nandigram. At this critical juncture in front of the Left in India, when all the gains made by peoples' struggles and sacrifices in creating the Left Front is in danger of being lost by the unilateral and fascistic action of one party, we appeal to you to take a stand and clearly come out on the side of the poor and working people. We request you to condemn the actions of the CPI(M) and demand a halt to the atrocities in Nandigram, withdraw from the Left Front, withdraw your ministers from the West Bengal state cabinet and act in unison with the greater peoples' movement that is taking place around Nandigram and other mass struggles. The CPI(M) is already isolated from the people, it is up to you to isolate it from the Left Front. It is up to you stop these brutalities being inflicted on the people and to prevent the collapse of peoples' trust in the Left movement in India. History has put a great responsibility on your shoulders today, and we sincerely hope that you would take these actions which would express your long-standing commitment to the common people of India. *TO SIGN THIS PETITION PLEASE VISIT -- http://www.petitiononline.com/rspcpifb/petition.html * -- OISHIK SIRCAR Fellow in Reproductive & Sexual Health and Women's Rights Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 60 Harbord Street Room 016 B Toronto, ON M5S 3L1 oishiksircar at gmail.com oishik.sircar at utoronto.ca 416.876.7926 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071113/2d5a6a9a/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 12:07:47 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:37:47 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] TN: 172 persons held for video piracy in 2007 Message-ID: <908adbd0711132237w2bf59600x4efdf2b22c2dbf16@mail.gmail.com> * http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/14/stories/2007111460840500.htm* ------------------------------ [image: ICICI Bank] Tamil Nadu - Chennai * 172 persons held for video piracy * Staff Reporter CHENNAI: The Central Crime Branch has, over the last one year, arrested 172 persons and registered 159 cases of copying and selling pirated compact discs (CD) and Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) of new films in the city. Of those arrested, five habitual offenders from Burma Bazaar were detained under the Goondas Act, according to a release. The value of the equipment seized during the period is estimated to be Rs.10.34 crore, as against Rs.1crore equipment seized last year. This year, Rs.8.36 crore worth VCDs/DVDs, Rs.1.58 crore worth printing machines, besides wrappers, DVD writers, computer equipment, photostat machines and two-wheelers and four-wheelers used for transport have been seized. On Monday, three persons were arrested and 4,375 CDs of films released during Deepavali were seized by the CCB Police and cases were registered against them under the Copy Right Act. The total value of the items seized on Monday was estimated to be Rs.26lakh. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071114/62d28ce2/attachment-0001.html From rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com Fri Nov 16 12:56:15 2007 From: rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com (Rodney D Ryder) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:26:15 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Free Ryder Message-ID: <006a01c82822$8707e5e0$1b64a8c0@RodneyRyder> Dear Sir, I am surprised that you continue to post comments about this issues; without ever bothering to check the facts. First, the edition of the book on the Right to Information was a joint creation of the Publishers Editorial Board [which consisted of scholars like Prof. Sridhar] and Rodney D. Ryder. The Publishers inserted material allegedly authored by Prof. Sridhar. Second, the matter was [and remains] duly settled between the publishers and the professor. Please verify facts before making your claims or statements. I do urge you to withdraw or edit your post accordingly. In the meantime, please accept my best wishes and warm regards, Rodney D. Ryder Rodney D. Ryder Partner FoxMandal Little FM House A-9, Sector-9 Noida - 201301 National Capital Region Tel : + 91 120 4077612 [Direct] Tel : + 91 120 4305555/3919555 Fax: + 91-120-2542222 Hand phone + 91 9811013560 Website: www.foxmandallittle.com Please note my new email address: rodney.ryder at foxmandallittle.com Offices also at : Bangalore, Bhuvaneshwar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Dhaka, Hyderabad, Kolkata & Mumbai *************FoxMandal Little's E-mail Disclaimer ************* Confidentiality : This message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachments or disclose the contents to any other person. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071116/e4b433a9/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 15:23:50 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:53:50 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Sadanand Menon: From Mohenjodaro to Madhuri Dixit Message-ID: <908adbd0711160153w3cf5d0c7t67dd90ad8aec8d8e@mail.gmail.com> http://www.business-standard.com/general/printpage.php?autono=304401 Sadanand Menon: From Mohenjodaro to Madhuri Dixit CRITICALLY INCLINED Sadanand Menon / New Delhi November 16, 2007 The past few years, I have responded to several requests for keynote lectures reviewing 'a century of Indian dance' — a sort of a narrative of dance in India through the 20th century. It has made me reflect seriously on the time cycle applicable to Indian dances. Considering there is the fictitious Mohenjodaro 'Dancing Girl' at one end and Madhuri Dixit at the other, the very concept of a 'hundred years' of dance is artificial within the Indian context. The time frame of a mere 'century' does not sit well with a civilisation that is comfortable speaking only in millennial terms. Most readers will remember the news item, a month ago, of the Archaeological Survey of India's discovery — at Bhirrana, a Harappan site in Haryana's Fatehabad district — of a red potsherd with an engraving resembling the 'Dancing Girl,' the iconic bronze figurine of Mohenjodaro. While the bronze was found in the 1920s, the potsherd came up during ASI's excavations in 2004-05. A few hundred miles separate the two sites. ASI Archaeologist L S Rao claims, in Man and Environment (Volume XXXII, No.1, 2007), that the find belongs to the Mature Harappan period as, until now, "no parallel to the 'Dancing Girl' — in bronze or any other medium — was known". He writes, "The delineation [of the lines in the potsherd] is so true to the stance of the bronze that it appears the craftsmen of Bhirrana had first-hand knowledge of the former." This has revived the old bogey of imagining the Mohenjodaro figurine of a girl in a tribhangi posture as being that of an early Bharatanatyam dancer. Dancer/choreographer Chandralekha used to pooh-pooh this claim saying, "Look at any Indian woman standing in the market or at a bus stop; they have exactly the same posture. We don't call them dancers. It is just an attempt to invent an ancient origin for classical dance." Eminent archaeologist H D Sankalia had, in a conversation with her in 1980, accepted her doubt as genuine. It is this naïve, inventive interpretation of the past, combined with more conscious mystification of origins in Shiva's dance on Kailasa, which has relegated the discourse around dance to some sort of a speculative theology, simultaneously masking and obfuscating the politics and aesthetics of the 'body' that we inherited and the crisis of that 'body' in our times. No hundred-year-audit of dance will be comprehensible without looking at its material sources in the subcontinent during the 2,000 years before it. Suffice it to say, a large variety of dances and body practices flourished in pre-Natya Shastra (200 BC to 200 AD) societies. The interlinks and overlaps in these were obviously observed and codified within a rigorous, structured, semiotic grid by Bharata in Natya Shastra, with a grammar and a cognitive system which has survived to this day (as pointed out in Chandralekha's seminal paper, Militant Origins of Indian Dance, Social Scientist, 1980). Kapila Vatsysayan's Traditions of Indian Folk Dance (Indian Book Company, 1976) documents the impressive range, variety and diversity of the practice of dance at the micro- and macro-levels of the Indian subcontinent, most of which are connected to hunting and work practices, agricultural cycles, seasonal variations and fertility rituals. As a common, connected gestural language evolved at the upper and lower ends of the social spectrum, the practice of dance was not seen as separate from daily life, breathing techniques, attack/defence systems, therapeutic practices or the broader disciplines of architecture, poetry and music. While the dances of the 'folk' — adivasis, agricultural labourers, subalterns — stayed raw, robust, collective and energising, dance in temples and courts became increasingly individuated, decorative, esoteric and decadent. Towards mid-19th century, it was this form, practised in the rapidly decaying princely courts of India, which was reviled and proscribed within the logic of Protestant puritanism of the colonial masters. The charged, post-1920s' rhetoric around the 'Devadasi Abolition Act', initiated by newly Calvinised Indian elites, reflects all the confusions, ignorance, guilt and rage over the subject. The early decades of the 20th century saw a new need to connect nostalgically with the past. Considering the ruptures, gaps and erotic material within it that the new moralism found hard to accept, the only option was to invoke a past, as if there was a cohesive, linear and continuous flow of 5,000 years from the 'Dancing Girl' of Mohenjodaro to our times. This was false, for much of what we call 'traditional', was newly 'invented' between 1925 and 1970. As during the national liberation movement, it was inevitable that classical dances too would get co-opted in the post-independence nation-building project, to be successively projected as heritage and as art products both ambassadorial and market-friendly. Yet, it is ridiculous how our elite and our academics continue their chicanery, periodically reinventing a 'timeless' frame for our dances, forgetting the Einsteinian dictum that anything 'timeless' is in a 'time-warp'. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 12:11:42 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:41:42 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [A2k] 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available In-Reply-To: <864A3D6B-9C6B-4BDE-829E-826E9E558224@keionline.org> References: <864A3D6B-9C6B-4BDE-829E-826E9E558224@keionline.org> Message-ID: <908adbd0711162241t1cbc8acaief02b614e29ca009@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Manon Ress Date: Nov 16, 2007 9:54 PM Subject: [A2k] 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available To: a2k discuss list - -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Announcement 1.8 million pages of federal case law to become freely available. http://public.resource.org/case_law_announcement.html WASHINGTON, D.C. / SEBASTOPOL, CA—November 14, 2007— Public.Resource.Org and Fastcase, Inc. announced today that they will release a large and free archive of federal case law, including all Courts of Appeals decisions from 1950 to the present and all Supreme Court decisions since 1754. The archive will be public domain and usable by anyone for any purpose. "The U.S. judiciary has allowed their entire work product to be locked up behind a cash register," said Carl Malamud, CEO of Public.Resource.Org. "Law is the operating system of our society and today's agreement means anybody can read the source for a substantial amount of case law that was previously unavailable." Fastcase, the leading developer of next-generation American legal research, has agreed to provide Public.Resource.Org with 1.8 million pages of federal case law. This is a marked departure for the online legal research industry, which traditionally has charged expensive subscription fees to access this information. "For eight years, Fastcase has been ahead of the market curve, working to democratize access to the law," said Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase, Inc. "At the same time, we have been advancing the science of search, combining the precision of traditional legal research with the simplicity of Web-based searches." Fastcase has reversed the traditional subscription model for lawyers, contracting directly with 11 state bar associations to make the national law library free for lawyers in their states. "Through this agreement with Public.Resource.Org, we are proud to expand our efforts beyond lawyers, and to make more of the law available to the general public at no cost," Walters said. The agreement calls for definitive paperwork approved by both parties within 30 days with Public.Resource.Org making developer snapshots of the archive available in early 2008. Public.Resource.Org is represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this transaction. The cases will be marked with a new Creative Commons mark —CC-Ø—that signals that there are no copyrights or other related rights attached to the content. This transaction represents a one-time purchase of a copy of data. This corpus will be integrated into the ongoing public services from organizations such as AltLaw and the Legal Information Institute, thus providing continuity of coverage into the future. Further announcements will be forthcoming on the availability of other case law, including Federal District and pre-1949 Appellate decisions. Public.Resource.Org intends to perform an initial transformation on the federal case law archive obtained from Fastcase using open source "star" mapping software, which will allow the insertion of markers that will approximate page breaks based on user-furnished parameters such as page size, margins, and fonts. "Wiki" technology will be used to allow the public to move around these "star" markers, as well as add summaries, classifications, keywords, alternate numbering systems for citation purposes, and ratings or "diggs" on opinions. Media Contacts Lisa Miller Carl Malamud Fleishman-Hillard/Fastcase, Inc. Public.Resource.Org +1.202.857.2209 +1.707.827.7290 lisa.miller at fleishman.com carl at media dot org About Fastcase Fastcase is the leading American provider of next-generation legal research, making the law accessible to more people by providing the national law library at a fraction of the cost of traditional companies. Using patented software that combines the best of legal research with the best of Web search, Fastcase helps busy legal professionals sift through the clutter, ranking the best cases first and enabling users to re-sort results to find answers fast. Founded in 1999, Fastcase has more than 275,000 paid subscribers from around the world. It is an American company based in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit www.fastcase.com. About Public.Resource.Org Public.Resource.Org was founded in 2007 to spearhead the creation of public works projects for the Internet. A 501(c)(3) registered public charity, Public.Resource.Org has worked across all three branches of the U.S. government to enhance the public domain. –1110– ************************************************************************ *** Manon Anne Ress manon.ress at keionline.org, 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 Il vaut mieux remuer une question, sans la décider, que la décider, sans la remuer. Pensées, essais, maximes et correspondance de J. Joubert p.249 http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-88671 Translation: It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 13:17:08 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:47:08 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Intellectual Property Board Bench to hear Novartis appeal Message-ID: <908adbd0711162346v6d03899ey304d3a0d8d91fa1b@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/17/stories/2007111753771500.htm National Intellectual Property Board Bench to hear Novartis appeal Special Correspondent Matter relates to rejection of pharma major's patent application Board Chairman can discharge functions of judicial or technical member Chandrasekaran excluded from Bench CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) here to constitute a Bench comprising its Chairman and Vice-Chairman to hear the appeals filed by Novartis AG against the rejection of its patent application. Passing orders on a petition filed by the pharmaceutical major, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice V. Ramasubramanian said the board should dispose of the statutory appeal as early as possibly after affording opportunities to all parties. Rejecting the objection raised by Natco Pharma Limited, the Bench said: "A plain reading of sub-section 3(a) of Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act clearly shows that the Chairman, who is deemed to be a judicial member, can discharge the functions of a judicial member or a technical member, as the case may be, either on the Bench to which he is appointed or to any other Bench." The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the board should always be regarded as judicial members irrespective of whether they were originally appointed technical members or judicial members. Referring to Additional Solicitor-General V. T. Gopalan's offer to constitute a Bench consisting of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the IPAB, as provided for under Section 84(3) (a) of the Act, the Bench said it was "permissible." It also recorded that senior counsel for Novartis AG, Shanthi Bhushan, had agreed to the proposal to end the impasse. P. S. Raman, senior counsel for Natco Pharma, had expressed doubt about the applicability of the provision and said it did not statutorily enable the Chairman, who was a judicial member, to discharge the functions of a technical member. The matter relates to the rejection of Novartis' application to patent its beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate by patent authorities. Though the statutory appeal against the rejection was originally filed before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, it was later transferred to the board after an IPAB Bench competent to hear the appeals was constituted. Novartis filed the present petition, taking exception to the presence of S. Chandrasekaran as the technical member of the Bench. It said he had filed an affidavit in the High Court in support of the patent authorities and, hence, would be biased against the company. As an alternative, the Centre came out with a proposal that the matter be heard by a Bench comprising the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, and thereby excluding Mr. Chandrasekaran. The proposal has now been accepted by the High Court. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 13:31:04 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:01:04 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?UPA_plans_nodal_centre_to_=91legal?= =?windows-1252?q?ly=92_snoop_on_your_phones?= Message-ID: <908adbd0711170000g375a1183kb8bedc95c3ec6887@mail.gmail.com> UPA plans nodal centre to 'legally' snoop on your phones RITU SARIN Posted online: Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST New Delhi, November 16 Instead of continuing with the existing system of telephone and telecommunication interception being done by individual service providers at the behest of intelligence and security agencies, the Government has initiated moves to set up a Rs 450-crore nodal centre for "lawful interception and monitoring." Setting up this "central monitoring centre" is one of the security-related actions taken by the Government for the telecom sector, as per the note drafted by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The project will be executed by the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT). At present, guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court permit eight intelligence/security agencies to conduct interception and monitoring of Government and private telephone services with due authorization of the Union/ State Home Secretary. A "Security Testing and Certificate Centre" has also been set up at IISc , Bangalore for security testing of all telecom equipment before induction into networks in India. From nirupillai at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:05:30 2007 From: nirupillai at gmail.com (Nirupama Pillai) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:35:30 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Submissions: Socio-Legal Review, National Law School of India University Message-ID: <720079100711170035g3ac4e4f5hed188cf7dc79371f@mail.gmail.com> The Law and Society Committee is an Activity-Based Committee, run by students of the National Law School and funded by the University. The Committee's area of interest is activity relating to the convergence of legal and social forces. Pursuant to this mandate, it includes reading groups, film screenings, talks and discussions as a means of academic engagement. 'Socio-Legal Review', a peer reviewed journal, is an initiative of the Committee that hopes to inspire socio-legal writing among members of the legal and social science community. It aims at exploring themes relating to the interface of law and society and providing a platform for students and young scholars. The Committee is keen to give 'law and society' an expansive interpretation, thereby keeping its basic criteria for contributions simply that of high academic merit, as long as there is a perceivable link. This would include not just writing about the role played by law in social change, or the role played by social dynamics in the formulation and implementation of law, but also writing that simply takes cognizance of legal institutions/ institutions of governance/administration, power structures in social commentary and so on. Through this effort, the journal also hopes to fill the lacunae relating to academic debate on socio-legal matters among law students. Socio-Legal Review has recently received a generous grant from Modern Law Review, United Kingdom to carry on its efforts, in spite of this being only its third year of publication. The first issue of 'Socio-Legal Review', published in 2005, carried the theme 'Law and Marginalisation'. The first issue included contributions from Shail Mayaram (Senior Fellow, Centre for Study of Developing Societies, Delhi), Sivamohan Sumathy (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka), apart from contributions from within the National Law School. Themes ranged from 'Poverty, Migration and Memory in the Mega-City', 'Migration and 'Displacement of Sri Lankan Tamil Women', 'Globalisation and the City-zen' to 'Reservation Policy of India and Rawls' Theory of Justice' and 'Contours of the Dalit Movement'. The second volume, published in 2006, has articles by W. T. Murphy (London School of Economics) and Rajeev Dhavan (Advocate, Supreme Court). As a theme was not imposed on contribution, writing ranged from subjects as varied as the pharmaceutical industry and patents to the impact of genetics on theories of crime and punishment. The third volume of the journal, released in August 2007, includes contributions by Dr. Fiona Kumari Campbell (Griffith University) and Dr. Narnia Bohler-Muller (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth), besides contributions from law students. The Socio-Legal Review welcomes contributions for its fourth volume to be released in 2008. Contributions may be in the form of articles or notes from the field.This year's Editorial Board has decided to continue with the policy of not imposing a theme. A contribution is eligible as long as fits in with the general mandate of the journal. Guidelines for Submission All contributions submitted to the journal should be original and should not be simultaneously considered by any other publication. Articles should not ordinarily exceed 8000 words.An abstract of about 300 words should accompany the contribution. Besides articles, the journal has a column on notes from the field, titled 'Law's Translations'. Notes from the Field are shorter pieces designed to provide a glimpse into a new legal strategy, political initiative or advocacy technique applied in the field, a current problem or obstacle faced in, legal reform or development work, or a new issue that has not yet received much attention and needs to be brought to light. This section is designed for the student researchers, legal practitioners, field staffers, and activists who often have the most significant insights to contribute, but the least time to write longer, scholarly articles. Notes from the field should not ordinarily exceed 5000 words. Contributions should be mailed in a soft copy to slr at nls.ac.in. The name of the author should not appear anywhere in the submission. Biographical information should be provided in a separate title page. The last date for submission is December 10, 2007. Submission is, however, on a rolling basis. Submissions made after this date may be considered for publication in the next volume. For any clarifications, please mail us at slr at nls.ac.in. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071117/0ddafaf1/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 10:47:23 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:17:23 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright notices to ISPs on the rise Message-ID: <908adbd0711182117n18db83adr4c6b128fb5bdb707@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/11/19/stories/2007111951240200.htm 'India has registered fastest increase in infringing activity' Piracy issues Over 15,000 notices have been issued till September this year. Monthly average notice has risen from 220 in 2006 to 1,682 L. N. Revathy Coimbatore, Nov. 18 Business Software Alliance has issued more than 15,000 notices to ISPs (Internet service providers) in India till September this year, on infringing activity. Sharing this information with Business Line, the BSA'a Vice-President and Regional Director (Asia), Mr Jeff Hardee, said the monthly average notice issuance has risen from 220 in 2006 to 1,682 this year. "India has registered the fastest increase in copyright infringement compared to any other country in Asia," he said and attributed it to "lack of awareness and total disregard of the copyright laws". Stating that it is important for people to understand that what they do on the Net "can and will be tracked" he said, "It is sad to note that India is not among those countries that have ratified the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Copyright Treaty." The WIPO Treaty has been ratified by 62 countries. "While the Government maintains that the Corporate Law is under review and the Bill would have to be passed incorporating the amendments, there is a need to understand that there are a large number of corporates here and they deserve good protection to transact online," Mr Hardee said. Cautioning about file sharing services, he said users invariably become victims of identity theft when they download files in the same location in which their personal data is stored, for, the data that is stored in the system gets uploaded without the users' knowledge. According to Tiversa study, about 12 million people are logged on to P2P networks worldwide at any given time and 450 million copies of P2P software downloaded. "While China and India compete for leadership in many sectors, including IT, China is surely acting upon illegal downloading. China's National Administration of Copyright (NAC) has launched a new campaign to crack down on illegal downloads of films, music, software and textbooks in the country's latest move to fight piracy," he said. The IDC study shows that the piracy rate in India has fallen to 71 per cent in 2006 compared to 82 per cent in China, "but the decline is very slow. China managed to bring the rate down by 10 per cent from 93 per cent in 2001 to 82 per cent last year, but India could manage only a 2 per cent reduction in three years," Mr Hardee said, emphasising the need for initiation of stringent measures to curb piracy. (India has registered a piracy loss of over a billion dollars in 2006 against $565 million in 2005.) Mr Hardee further pointed out that China was working on a plan to develop a software industry to bring down the piracy rate, while the orientation in India was only on export of software services. "China is keen to develop a local market. India has a huge domestic market due to the steep rise in PC penetration. The Government though is not giving much attention," he alleged. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu Business Line From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 11:14:44 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:44:44 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Imitate or die Message-ID: <908adbd0711182144ucdfcb27ycf9c958a3acf27e0@mail.gmail.com> http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/240737/ Imitate or die Posted online: Sunday , November 18, 2007 at 2358 hrs China makes computers, but imports most of its chips. India makes drugs, but copies almost all of the compounds; it writes software, but rarely owns the result. The bolder claims made for all three industries thus have a similar, hollow ring. They have flourished, but mostly on the back of other countries' technology. "We are not at the stage of Intel Inside," admits Arvind Atignal of Clinigene, a clinical-research firm, drawing his own analogy between desktops and drugs. "We are the keyboard, screens and peripherals." How much does this matter? Joseph Xie of SMIC, the Chinese chipmaker, spent seven years working inside Intel. Its strategy, he says, was simple: "get there first; make most of the money; let the second guy get the change." That is certainly one way to run a technology firm. But competing in that race is expensive and exhausting. Few of Intel's rivals still try to keep up with it, nanometre by nanometre. Countries of China's and India's heft and ambition cherish the idea of pushing back the limits of technology. But that push is risky, costly, frustrating work. Although China and India could devote their considerable intellectual resources to solving the problems faced by economies on the technological frontier, why cross that bridge until you reach it? Seen in this light, India's generic drugmakers are models not laggards. They invest in just enough know-how to exploit the rest of the world's discoveries. Thanks to them, Indians enjoy some of the world's cheapest medicines. Under the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), India has ceded the right to free-ride on foreign advances. It now grants 20 years of patent protection to inventions hatched after 1995. In return, it hopes tighter laws will inspire Indians to new exploits in innovation, and reassure foreigners wary of inventing or making original products in the country. The tougher laws may yet succeed. A recent study by Bruce Abramson of the World Bank expresses high hopes. A 'patent chic' is already detectable in the country, he reports. He has even heard of Indian farmers calling lawyers in the hope of patenting their prize vegetables. But, as yet, the new regime has not proved its worth. Over 17,000 patent applications were filed in India in 2004-05, almost 40% more than the year before. But only 3,500 were by Indians. Of the 49 most prolific filers in the past decade, 44 are either foreign companies or subsidiaries. Of the five Indian firms, all are either government-sponsored institutes or generic-drug companies, which did fine before TRIPS. The new regime will be costly to run, if India takes it seriously. But the larger cost lies in the opportunities for unabashed imitation that India has now forgone. These lost opportunities might be quite big. Had Indian firms been prevented from copying fluoroquinolones, for example, the Indian public would have been worse off by the equivalent of $255million a year, reckons a study of the antibiotics market by Shubham Chaudhuri of the World Bank, Pinelopi Goldberg of Yale and Panle Jia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. India could resolve not to invent another thing, and still prosper mightily. It does not even have to catch up with the world. As noted earlier, it has much to gain merely by catching up with itself. A report by the World Bank ("Unleashing India's Innovation") cast its eye over thousands of Indian enterprises—makers of drugs, foods, car parts and textiles, as well as metal-bashers and garment-weavers. In each industry, it found a thick clump of unproductive companies operating far behind the industry's vanguard. In garment-making, for example, the bank found a few highly productive companies, in which the value-added per worker was over Rs 6,00,000 in 2004. But in over 60% of the industry, that figure was less than Rs 1,00,000. Even ignoring the very best firms, the bank still found a leading group in each industry that was about five times as productive as the average firm. It calculates that India's national output could be 4.8 times bigger than it is if only enterprises were 'to absorb and use the knowledge that already exists in the economy'. Learning new tricks is not the only way to thrive. China may have stopped inventing things (clocks, compasses, gunpowder and so on) after the 15th century. But it did not stop growing. The empire found fresh farmland to till, using the same old techniques, and new markets to exploit, selling the same old goods. Likewise, today's China still enjoys a lot of scope for 'extensive' growth—doing more with more—as well as 'intensive' growth—doing more with less. "China is very much a top-line country," says Max von Zedtwitz of Tsinghua University in Beijing. Although outlays on R&D are increasing, many people still appreciate size over sophistication. In the scramble to grow, a company that sets aside precious resources for research can be at a disadvantage. By the time its investment pays off, the firm's rivals might be twice as big. "They will acquire you," says Max von Zedtwitz. Technological pursuits have opportunity costs. Other, perhaps more lucrative, uses can always be found for the resources so expended. That is why no firm in China is betting billions on a risky search for the next blockbuster drug. "If I had even a hundredth of that kind of money," says Hai Mi of WuXi PharmaTech, a pharmaceutical firm in Shanghai, "I'd rather open a restaurant." —(c) The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007 From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 17:22:29 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:52:29 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] GM food: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre Message-ID: <908adbd0711200352o7b57c05ds85b7c1071f116334@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/20/stories/2007112056461100.htm National GM food: notice to Centre Legal Correspondent New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a petition seeking a ban on the import and sale of genetically-modified processed food. A three-judge Bench issued notice on the petition filed by Gene Campaign and its president Suman Sahai challenging the August 23 notification granting exemption for such import. The petition contended that the exemption granted in favour of the food stuffs derived from living modified organisms would have adverse impact on health and environment. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 11:56:16 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:26:16 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Anti-piracy moves `hurt sales` Message-ID: <908adbd0711202226r3bd50d73j91c4aee1ab9a5db7@mail.gmail.com> Anti-piracy moves `hurt sales` Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson / London November 21, 2007 Retailers are urging the music industry to drop piracy protection for online downloads. Retailers are urging the music industry to drop piracy protection for online downloads after new figures showed the average Briton has bought fewer than three digital tracks in the past three years. Incompatible proprietary technologies, aimed at defeating rampant piracy in the digital music era, are instead "stifling growth and working against the consumer interest", said Kim Bayley, director-general of the Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA). Her warning comes as high street retailers and digital music specialists watch pre-Christmas sales trends nervously. The music industry makes at least 40 per cent of its revenues in the fourth quarter, but the traditional sales build-up has started later than usual. Although Leona Lewis — the X Factor winner backed by Simon Cowell's Syco label — this month notched up the highest first-week album sales for a debut artist, album volumes are down 11 per cent, or 12 million units, for the year to date, according to the Official UK Charts Company and Music Week. Recorded music companies had been "quick to complain" that the slide in CD sales had not been offset by growth in digital music, Bayley said, but their embrace of digital rights management (DRM) systems "might have added to the slow take-up of legal digital services". Just 150 million tracks have been downloaded legally in the UK over the past three years, she added. "Sadly, that amounts to an average of less than one 79p per download per head of population per year." The ERA's appeal comes as more companies experiment with the DRM-free MP3 format, following a pre-emptive challenge in February by Apple's Steve Jobs. Most recently, Universal Music this month began offering its classical and jazz catalogue in MP3 format. In April, EMI "unlocked" its catalogue, charging consumers a premium for DRM-free versions of its music on Apple's iTunes store, and has since signed deals with other digital retailers for MP3 files encoded at more than twice the quality of standard audio files. "There are certainly experiments, but there's still a certain element of resistance within the music industry," Bayley said. "At the moment, [DRM] just puts consumers off," she said, adding that confusion about formats was driving people toward illegal downloads. She cited research this month that found consumers were almost four times as likely to choose an MP3 file as a DRM-protected track when the two were offered alongside each other. The ERA, which represents high street retailers and online sites, said it was making the appeal now in the hope that music companies would drop DRM protections before the Christmas season and the January sales rise, when consumers load up the iPods they receive at Christmas. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 15:17:25 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:47:25 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Govt plans curbs on B2C e-trade Message-ID: <908adbd0711220147u780ee731w9d78a05537c4dac7@mail.gmail.com> Govt plans curbs on B2C e-trade Bipin Chandran Posted online: Thursday , November 22, 2007 at 0239 hrs New Delhi, Nov 21The government wants to bring goods sold over the Internet to customers in India under the purview of domestic retail trade guidelines. The move would impact a burgeoning business that has clocked a turnover of around Rs 2,500 crore in 2006-07 and is growing by over 30% annually. The proposal aims to block backdoor entry into the domestic retail market by international retail companies. Overseas companies account for most of the retail business on the Net. Government sources said it was currently possible for a company to sell products in India over the Internet without confirming to existing retail norms. For example, a global retail company could set up warehouses across India and sell its products online, which is a violation of existing norms. "The goods can be sourced and shipped from India. A retailer can set up a neighbourhood warehouse like it would in the case of a normal retail venture, and sell on the Internet to circumvent retail norms," said the official. Present retail norms allow single-brand retailers with 51% foreign investment. In the case of e-commerce, 100% foreign investment is permitted in business-to-business e-commerce, while no foreign equity is allowed in business-to-customer e-commerce ventures. In the case of wholesale trade, 100% FDI is permitted. Once implemented, Internet companies will not be able to sell goods in India unless they are single-brand products and the firm is 49% Indian-owned. The government is of the view that selling products on the Net, although billed and tax paid abroad, violates domestic retail guidelines. This would also mean that an Indian company selling goods in India over the Internet would not be allowed foreign investments. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 10:53:05 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:23:05 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Daily legal newsletter reloaded Message-ID: <908adbd0711262122y5e10e38ej1b8ac8840be8627@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, After a hiatus of 8 months, ,I'm restarting a free Daily legal newsletter service that I had previously been running. I've attached a copy of yesterday's newsletter as a sample. If you're interested in receiving this everyday, you can sign up for free at http://judis.openarchive.in/nletter/newsletter.php . Regards, Prashant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071127/9529cacb/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071127/9529cacb/attachment-0001.htm From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 15:29:22 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:59:22 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Lawyers divided over web sites Message-ID: <908adbd0711280159l43d64de8v5f487889af8659cf@mail.gmail.com> *http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/28/stories/2007112853910500.htm* ------------------------------ [image: ICICI Bank] Kerala - Thiruvananthapuram * Lawyers divided over web sites * Sangeeth Kurian ------------------------------ * Web sites to contain personal details Legal profession will be more accessible * ------------------------------ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The move by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to allow lawyers to launch web sites with the approval of the respective State Bar Councils have evoked mixed reaction from the members of the Trivandrum Bar Association. The amended rules of professional conduct and ethics will permit lawyers to provide information on their address, standing, speciality and qualification on the web sites. The web sites in turn would be scrutinised and verified by the BCI and the State Council, which will have the right to take punitive action against the erring lawyers either on the basis of complaints or suo motu by the BCI. "The decision prima facie appears to be a welcome move," said Cherinniyur P. Sasidharan Nair, lawyer. "In this age of specialisation it is imperative that a litigant gets necessary information regarding the standing and credibility of the lawyer they are engaging. But there should also be a regular monitoring mechanism in the form of bar council to prevent lawyers from using the facility to exploit the client community through advertisments," said Mr. Sasidharan Nair. "A good lawyer gains reputation among the litigants through practise and not by marketing himself through web sites," said Dani J. Paul, lawyer. "The move will benefit only high-end lawyers. People with money and resources will always be in a better position to market themselves. This will lead to an unhealthy competition among lawyers," he said. But then there are lawyers like Sasthamangalam Ajith and Clarance Miranda who believe that launching web sites could actually make the legal profession "more transparent and accessible". They argue that a system of personal web sites and brochures were already in vogue in most of the European countries. "Personal web sites will help litigants to identify a good lawyer from the bad. The doors of justice will become more accessible to the clients. It will make the public aware about the area a lawyer is specialising in and his professional competency. This will eventually eliminate quacks, touts and middlemen," said Mr. Ajith. "The advantages of the move far outweigh the disadvantages," he said. "In this age of consumer sovereignty, the facility will enable clients to receive the best legal service at competitive cost. Moreover, it will also enable the bar council to rein in unprofessional practices," said Mr. Ajith. According to Mr. Miranda, the right to choose a lawyer of his/her choice was a principle within the meaning of the Article 22 of the Constitution. Also under Section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, an accused person had the right to be defended by a pleader of his/her choice. "For this the public will have to know what an lawyer is specialising in and the proficiency in the respective area. Only then will a litigant be able to entrust him with a case," said Mr. Miranda. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071128/8e3ff8fe/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 15:34:14 2007 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:04:14 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Panchayati Raj system gets Microsoft solution called, ironically (humorously?), "Swaraj" Message-ID: <908adbd0711280204g39d6d250o3d0a8ab5badb661d@mail.gmail.com> *Date:28/11/2007* *URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/11/28/stories/2007112851680400.htm* ------------------------------ * Panchayati Raj system gets Microsoft solution * * SWARAJ to offer critical information on schemes, funds, and land * ------------------------------ * At the first Microsoft Government Leadership Summit today, Microsoft and the Uttar Pradesh Technical University signed an MoU to address training needs * ------------------------------ Kamal Narang *Growth ahead*: The Minister of Panchayati Raj, Youth Affairs and Sports, Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar, with Mr Ravi Venkatesan, Chairman and Corporate Vice-President, Microsoft India, during the "Microsoft Government Leadership Summit" in the Capital on Tuesday. — *Our Bureau * New Delhi, Nov. 27 The Union Minister for Panchayati Raj, Mr Mani Shankar Aiyer, today launched 'SWARAJ' an IT solution developed by Microsoft for managing the Panchayati Raj system in the country. The solution addresses the information needs for all the five tiers of Panchayati Raj namely the Ministry of Panchayati Raj at the central level, Panchayati Raj Departments at State level, District Administration at the District level, Panchayat Samitis/BDO at the Block and Gram Panchayats at the Village level. Microsoft has developed SWARAJ as a single integrated application, which can run in both connected and unconnected scenarios and can provide critical information on schemes, funds, land, and works besides baseline information to evolve Panchayat's infrastructure and human development indices. It has inbuilt analytical tools to study the data colleted on a real time basis. At the first Microsoft Government Leadership Summit today, Microsoft and the Uttar Pradesh Technical University (UPTU) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to address the training requirements of technology students in the State. The pact focuses on a training programme that would be open to all final year and pre-final year engineering students graduating in computer science and information science; as well as final year students of Masters in Computer Applications. The MoU signed with UPTU involves an engagement for six months starting December 2007. The terms of the agreement include a three-month-long training programme that would be open to all students in UPTU's member institutes. At the end of the training, one top student from each of the UPTU member colleges — selected through a test conducted at the end of the programme — would have an opportunity to apply for Microsoft student partner programme. In addition, the company has allocated 300 projects for UPTU under Microsoft's Academic Projects Program. Microsoft would also train 90 faculty members of UPTU on its latest technologies. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu Business Line -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071128/cadca5bc/attachment-0001.html From stef.langmans at STUDENT.KULEUVEN.BE Fri Nov 30 17:49:21 2007 From: stef.langmans at STUDENT.KULEUVEN.BE (Stef Langmans) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:19:21 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for research cooperation: Public and Alternative Higher Education Practices Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/defanged-0 Size: 3426 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20071130/a78415e4/attachment-0001.bin