From the.solipsist at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 13:26:50 2008
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:26:50 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Open Access to the Law in the U.S.
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809040056v2b751ac0rc7cbc95679d61b9b@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All,
>From /.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/181251
The comments, as always on Slashdot, are interesting.
- Pranesh
-------------
Nathan Halverson writes
"California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to
share them. And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and
open-access hero, Carl Malamud
. He has spent the last
couple months scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city,
county and state laws — think building codes, banking laws, etc.
Malamud wants California to sue him
,
which is almost a given if the state wants to continue claiming
copyright. He thinks a federal court will rule in his favor: It is
illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it.
Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate filings online in 1994,
and did the same with the patent office. He got the Smithsonian to
loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop forbidding people from
sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to quit claiming
copyright on state laws."Malamud's talk at Google ("All the
Government's Information"
) is also
well worth watching.
From the.solipsist at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 00:00:41 2008
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:00:41 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Hyperlinks and the First Amendment
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809041130q857a7fds3622f015226643da@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All,
Reproduced below is an article by Anita Ramasastry on a recent case
involving linking and copyright claims. This isn't new ground, but
serves as a good summary of the cases in the U.S.
The controversy around deep-linking is rather absurd. It seems to be
a case of teaching an old law do new tricks. Sure, the plaintiff
might be hurt financially by deep-linking, but copyright law is not
the appropriate law to apply to the situation. There is no making
public of the information contained on the deep-linked site; only the
location of the information is made public. Trying to twist copyright
law out of shape to curb the innate qualities of hyperlinks (which
form the very basis of the World Wide Web) is a retrogressive step,
and should be guarded against.
Cheers,
Pranesh
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ramasastry/20080902.html
----------
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20080902.html
A City Tries to Stop a Woman from Linking to Its Website: Why Most
Challenges to Links Will Not Succeed, and What the Rare Exceptions May
Be
By ANITA RAMASASTRY
Tuesday, Sept. 02, 2008
Sheboygan, Michigan resident Jennifer Reisinger alleges that after she
created a link from her own website to the website of the city's
police department, the City Attorney issued a "cease and desist" order
commanding her to remove the link. Reisinger claims that the motive
was retaliation: She had supported recalling Sheboygan Mayor Juan
Perez, and alleges that Perez was behind the "cease and desist" order.
Reisinger eventually filed a federal lawsuit challenging the "cease
and desist" order. Although the city has withdrawn its demand that she
de-post her link, Reisinger seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages,
unspecified punitive damages, and unspecified declaratory relief,
alleging that city personnel violated her First Amendment rights.
In this column, I will discuss why I believe Reisinger will, and
should, win her case. Generally, linking is fair game from a legal
perspective - including linking to public and official websites. After
all, linking is not much different from including a URL in an email,
handout, or poster - and all of these are plainly forms of
First-Amendment-protected expression.
Because Linking Is First-Amendment-Protected, the City Would Need a
Compelling Reason to Order Someone to Depost a Link to a Public Site
At least one federal court, in a case involving Internet censorship,
ACLU v. Miller, has noted that linking may be First-
Amendment-protected. I believe that this is clearly the correct
analysis. Linking is, in part, the Internet's equivalent of quotation,
and it has long been established that quotation - including quotation
that serves the purpose of aiding sharp criticism of the work that is
quoted - is First-Amendment-protected, as well as being typically
covered by the "fair use" exception to the copyright law. Indeed,
linking serves free speech by allowing readers to access more
voluminous material than could easily be directly quoted, and then to
read the writer's commentary on that material.
If anything, linking to government websites is at the very core of
First Amendment protection. By definition, such sites are public, not
private, and the right to protest governmental action and petition for
change is a crucial part of our system. Accordingly, using links to
send others to a police or agency website is not only legal, but
generally a positive thing. The police may be annoyed by the volume of
calls and emails they receive, but that volume only represents the
voices of the citizens they serve.
In this case, it appears that Reisinger's link was fully
First-Amendment protected. Thus, the city would have needed a
compelling reason to order her to de-post, and it appears that it had
none.
The Exceptions: How Linking Can Be Illegal
Of course, there are exceptions here, as with all free speech - but
none applies to Reisinger's link. For instance, using a link to
communicate a threat could be illegal - for example, if a site were to
say "Kill this person" and then link to a website with his or her
photo on it.
Linking itself does not inherently violate copyright, for it does not
involve copying. Rather, clicking on a hyperlink directs an Internet
user to a new Web page. This point was made by the district judge in a
2002 suit by Ticketmaster against Tickets.com. There, the judge also
compared linking to a website to using a library card catalog to find
information.
However, if a website owner knowingly provides links to material that
violates copyright, this act may constitute contributory copyright
infringement. For instance, in Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, a Utah court dealt with possible copyright infringement
where a defendant initially posted unauthorized copies of copyrighted
material on its own site, and then replaced the copies with links to
other sites that also had posted unauthorized copies.
In addition, pointing to infringing material for the purpose of
disseminating such material may violate the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA). In Universal v. Reimerdes, a court barred 2600
Magazine from posting hyperlinks to DeCSS code - which it found to be
an illegal copyright-circumvention device -- because the court found
the magazine had linked to this software code for the purpose of
further distributing it to other Internet users. The court found that
it had the power to issue such a prohibition because of the nature of
the link as an infringing act.
Web links may be problematic if they are misleading. Links might also
be part of a valid claim for misrepresentation, defamation or false
advertising, if the link's text or surrounding materials make false
statements about the site that is linked to (for instance, claiming
that the linking site is affiliated with or sponsored by the company
to whose site the link leads).
Some commercial websites' Terms and Conditions require permission
before other sites can link to them. Courts have not yet made clear
whether this permission requirement is generally valid - and it may
well violate the First Amendment. However, the reason for the
permission requirement is understandable: Sites want to be able to
fend off competitors who might, for instance, make some kind of
parasitical use of the site's resources in a way that violates unfair
competition laws. Attempting to require permission for links allows
the site to preempt the argument that it somehow consented in advance
to what would otherwise be unfair competition.
Deep Linking: The Additional Issues It Raises
"Deep linking" (which appear not to have been at issue in the
Reisinger case) refers to the use of hyperlinks to a page other than a
website's home page, and raises issues of its own.
Website owners often complain that deep links may divert traffic away
from their home pages and disrupt the intended flow of their sites and
thus confuse customers who find themselves in the middle of a new
site. One of the biggest complaints is loss of revenue. Some websites
rely on paid advertisements. If a visitor bypasses a home that which
contains pay-per-click ads, the website owner may lose needed
advertising dollars. The suit by Ticketmaster against Tickets.com
involved a deep link that bypassed Ticketmaster's webpage. As noted
above, the judge there saw no copyright violation because the link did
not itself involve copying. But he did note that deep links may cause
other legal liability for businesses, when they contribute to consumer
confusion about the identities of different commercial websites. For
instance, if a site links to another site's internal purchasing page,
customers routed to that page by the link may falsely believe they are
buying from the first site, not the second.
Just last month, another case illustrated why deep linking can raise
unique legal issues - particularly involving confusion as to the true
source of copyrighted material or trademarked products. There, federal
judge Sam Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas granted a
preliminary injunction against the operator or a motorcycle racing
website, Supercrosslive.com. Defendant Robert Davis had been posting
deep links to live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events on another
racing site, belonging to SFX Motor Sports, which holds the copyright
to the audiocasts.
SFX commenced a lawsuit against Davis in February 2008. It claimed
that it was being harmed financially by Davis's deep links. Racing
fans who clicked on Davis's links would not visit SFX's homepage and
see the logos of SFX's paid sponsors, which provided money for the SFX
audiocasts and site.
Last week, Judge Lindsay ruled in SFX's favor. He ruled that Davis's
deep links did not fall under the "fair use" exception to copyright
law, and ordered Davis to cease linking directly to SFX's audiocasts.
He also noted that without the injunction, SFX would lose its ability
"to sell sponsorships or advertisement on the basis that it is the
exclusive source of the Webcasts."
As the SFX case illustrates, there are genuine legal claims that arise
from linking, especially deep linking. But as the Reisinger case
illustrates, the classic link - connecting to another's sites homepage
and telling the truth about it - not only is legally unproblematic,
but also advances free speech.
-----
Anita Ramasastry is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of
Washington School of Law in Seattle and a Director of the Shidler
Center for Law, Commerce & Technology. She has previously written on
business law, cyberlaw, computer data security issues, and other legal
issues for this site, which contains an archive of her columns.
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 09:25:42 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:25:42 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: Draft policy on Open standards for e-Gov in
India -Open for Public review
In-Reply-To: <4694.117.192.130.131.1220451352.squirrel@symonds.net>
References: <35f96d470809030104x18d83282i2e145d4d3f2f963a@mail.gmail.com>
<1220432401.5686.4.camel@sunil-laptop>
<908adbd0809030204v848090crd67c8950bc94a3f2@mail.gmail.com>
<4694.117.192.130.131.1220451352.squirrel@symonds.net>
Message-ID: <908adbd0809032055k62ab6885mafa3d67a4a8165f2@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: 2008/9/3
Subject: Draft policy on Open standards for e-Gov in India -Open for
Public review
To: Prashant Iyengar , sunil at mahiti.org,
Anivar Aravind , Pranesh Prakash
Hi All,
The government has released a draft version of a Policy on Open standards
for e-Governance. It is presently open for Public review.
Please find the policy at the link below-
http://egovstandards.gov.in/Policy_Open_Std_review
The policy seems to have some really good points like-
5.1) Mandatory Characteristics:
5.1.1)Selected Standard should be Royalty Free for life time of the standard.
5.1.2)Selected Standard should be developed in a collaborative and consensus
manner and not led by a single agency or a small closed group of interested
parties
5.1.3)Selected Standard should be recursively open; They shall not use
unpublished extensions
However we really do need to look at it with greater detail and discuss
the same.
I have also attached the policy with this email.
Thanks,
Vinay
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Policy_on_openOpenStandards.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 113667 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080904/a20326ad/attachment-0001.pdf
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 13:38:18 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:38:18 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Warner 'sues over Puttar movie'
Message-ID: <908adbd0809060108n3d61e2cbme5c4ebde755ccea@mail.gmail.com>
Warner 'sues over Puttar movie'
Harry Potter maker Warner Bros is suing an Indian film company over
the title of upcoming film Hari Puttar - A Comedy Of Terrors,
according to reports.
Warner Bros feels the name is too similar to that of its world famous
young wizard, according to trade paper The Hollywood Reporter.
A spokesman confirmed the lawsuit against Mumbai-based Mirchi Movies.
The case is reportedly due to be heard in Bombay High Court. The film
is due to open in India on 12 September.
"We have recently commenced proceedings against parties involved in
the production and distribution of a movie entitled Hari Puttar,"
Warner Bros spokeswoman Deborah Lincoln told The Hollywood Reporter.
"Warner Bros values and protects intellectual property rights.
"However, it is our policy not to discuss publicly the details of any
ongoing litigation."
'Unfortunate timing'
Hari is a popular Indian name while Puttar means son in Punjabi.
Hari Puttar, directed by Rajesh Bajaj and Lucky Kohli, stars Zain Khan
as Hari alongside veteran Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff.
In my opinion, I don't think our title has any similarity or links
with Harry Potter
Munish Purii
Mirchi Movies
It tells the story of a 10-year-old boy who moves to England with his
parents and becomes embroiled in a battle over a secret microchip.
Munish Purii, of Mirchi Movies, told The Hollywood Reporter: "We
registered the Hari Puttar title in 2005 and it's unfortunate that
Warner has chosen to file a case so close to our film's release.
"In my opinion, I don't think our title has any similarity or links
with Harry Potter."
Two weeks ago, it was reported that the release date for the next
Potter film - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - had been pushed
back by eight months to July 2009.
Warner Bros said the decision had been taken in order to guarantee the
studio a major summer blockbuster in 2009.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/7580941.stm
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 13:41:52 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:41:52 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] MNCs seek detectives' help to check IPR violations
Message-ID: <908adbd0809060111x3be9eb4bu3ea7c773b551bf5b@mail.gmail.com>
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Services/Consultancy__Audit/MNCs_seek_detectives_help_to_check_IPR_violations/rssarticleshow/3399704.cms
MNCs seek detectives' help to check IPR violations
24 Aug, 2008, 1820 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: In order to provide brand protection and curb duplication
of products, IT, pharma, electronics, telecom and electrical goods
manufacturing giants are approaching private detectives to safeguard
them against Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) violation.
"A number of global firms have approached us seeking help to stop IPR
infringement. Companies are really taking the issue seriously. We
expect number to grow further," said Kunwar Vikram Singh, President,
Association of Private Detectives of India.
To strictly deal with such "modern crimes" they have formed a separate
wing of professionals including former officers from intelligence
agencies. "We have qualified and efficient hands from all the sectors
like automobile, electrical, electronics, medical and ITES. They are
an excellent mix of technology and investigation skills," said Singh.
"We receive number of complaints related to copying. From tea brands
to fashion apparels all are harmed by this. We are contacted by known
fashion designers also. Some of whom have formally lodged complaint
and requested us to probe the matter," he said.
However, police is also involved in the task. "After thorough probe on
the complaints, we approach local police to help us in nabbing the
culprits," he said.
From nicheant at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 21:15:37 2008
From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Nishant_?=
=?UTF-8?Q?|_=E0=A4=A8=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=B6=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=81=E0=A4=A4?=)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 21:15:37 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Pirated DVDs of Indian films seized in Britain
Message-ID: <4439ee330809070845r6e9e7606vacf97564a090a5d6@mail.gmail.com>
Pirated DVDs of Indian films seized in Britain
London, Sep 7 (PTI) British officials have seized nearly 3000 fake DVDs of
latest Bollywood films, including those that have not yet been released,
from a shop in Leicester as part of a swoop on counterfeit Indian films. The
growing popularity of Indian films in Britain feeds a lucrative counterfeit
market for DVDs in Asian-dominated areas such as Southall, Birmingham,
Harrow, Leicester and Manchester.
Officials of Trading Standards, a government agency that ensures trading is
conducted fairly, visited the shop and found that it was selling DVDs of
movies that had not yet been released on to DVDs and those of films still on
at the cinema. The shop was also selling discs with homemade labels
and compilation DVDs that are not commercially available. The Leicester
Magistrates' Court was told that 49 had been verified as illegal, and
magistrates accepted that the rest of the haul were not legal copies. Shop
owner Khalid Mohamed and his son Muhammed, Leicester, pleaded guilty to 11
offences against the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Video Recording Act 1984.
Sarah Kawaja, prosecuting lawyer for the Leicester City Council, said: "The
DVDs were on sale for a fraction of the usual price. Some were films which
were on show, or about to be released in cinemas."
In a similar crackdown, Udam Singh, an Indian-origin trader in Southall, was
fined and sentenced to 150 hours of community service for selling Indian
pornographic DVDs in July.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080907/87992969/attachment.html
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 15:24:33 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:24:33 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Essential drugs become scarce in India, Africa
Message-ID: <908adbd0809080254w2d84a0e7x55bce63bcb8be253@mail.gmail.com>
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/03081347.htm
Essential drugs become scarce in India, Africa
NEW DELHI: Over 1.7 billion people, mostly concentrated in India and
Africa, do not have access to essential drugs and the situation is
worsening with the dwindling public healthcare spending in the
developing countries.
"More than 1.7 billion people in India and Africa do not have access
to essential drugs... across the world, about 14 million people die
due to infectious diseases and 10 million children die due to vaccine
preventable diseases,'' K Satyanarayana, Head o f the Intellectual
Property Rights Unit, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) told
PTI.
However, India has one of the best drug procurement systems in the
world especially in states like Tamil Nadu and Delhi, Satyanarayana
said quoting a WTO report. "These should be replicated in other states
as well,'' he said. The pharma industry, he sai d, should play vital
role in making healthcare affordable.
"The pharma industries can form strategic partnership with the
government to bring out drugs which poor people can afford.'' "For
chronic diseases, there are reports of the industry willing to
consider dual pricing so that poor people can access drugs f or
cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases etc,'' he said.
Satyanarayana said the Indian Patent Office should not hesitate to
invoke provisions of compulsory licensing and flexibilities available
under TRIPS and India Patent Act whenever the drugs required by poor
remain out of reach. - PTI
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 20:48:52 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:48:52 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] [A2k] Open Access to the Law in the U.S.
In-Reply-To: <48BF6356.D2ECA78C@ix.netcom.com>
References: <4785f1e20809040056v2b751ac0rc7cbc95679d61b9b@mail.gmail.com>
<48BF6356.D2ECA78C@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <908adbd0809080818y3e507123x62a48fb1f064071c@mail.gmail.com>
Hey,
That's really interesting, although distressing news. Here in India,
we're fortunate to have pretty broad statutory "fair dealing"
permissions which cover most categories of government information -
not restricted only to laws. T
The Joint Committee which drafted the Indian Copyright Act in 1957, in
its report explicity states the aspiration that "certain classes of
Government works should be in the public domain".
Let's hope this freedom lasts.
Prashant
2008/9/4 Jeffrey A. Williams :
> Pranesh and all,
>
> Yes, slasdot's articles are normally in the lead and very intereting.
> This one especially. Interesting enough, California is ICANN's
> headquarters. Food for thought, eh? But than again seems like
> maybe California and ICANN along with Google are birds of
> feather, along with the RIAA and MPAA, eh?
>
> But seriously, such a notion that a State can claim it's
> written law is not open to free and full access by it's
> citizens due to a copywrite claim by the state, which after
> all ARE the people of that state, is horribly an irresponsible
> claim. Utter nonsense and not Constitutional.
>
> Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> >From /.
>> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/181251
>>
>> The comments, as always on Slashdot, are interesting.
>>
>> - Pranesh
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> Nathan Halverson writes
>> "California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to
>> share them. And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and
>> open-access hero, Carl Malamud
>> . He has spent the last
>> couple months scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city,
>> county and state laws — think building codes, banking laws, etc.
>> Malamud wants California to sue him
>> ,
>> which is almost a given if the state wants to continue claiming
>> copyright. He thinks a federal court will rule in his favor: It is
>> illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it.
>> Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate filings online in 1994,
>> and did the same with the patent office. He got the Smithsonian to
>> loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop forbidding people from
>> sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to quit claiming
>> copyright on state laws."Malamud's talk at Google ("All the
>> Government's Information"
>> ) is also
>> well worth watching.
>> _______________________________________________
>> A2k mailing list
>> A2k at lists.essential.org
>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 20:58:11 2008
From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:58:11 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [A2k] Brazil rejects Tenofovir patent
In-Reply-To: <3a5adf590809041006x7709c379of380d6b012691148@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3a5adf590809041005y527e9774uf0aaa6e38bbbb389@mail.gmail.com>
<3a5adf590809041006x7709c379of380d6b012691148@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908adbd0809080828x35bbb503lbc0e488abba43477@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jay Purcell
Date: 2008/9/4
Subject: [A2k] Brazil rejects Tenofovir patent
To: a2k , Ip-health
- --
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
MSF: "This is the first time that a patent related to an antiretroviral
(ARV) medicine has been rejected as a result of a pre-grant opposition in
Brazil."
http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=28630EB3-15C5-F00A-251F391A2B46443A&component=toolkit.pressrelease&method=full_html
*Gilead's Antiretroviral Patent Request Rejected by Brazil*
[Sep 04, 2008]
A patent request from the pharmaceutical company
Gilead for
its antiretroviral drug tenofovir was rejected by Brazil Wednesday,
Reuters
reports.
After announcing the decision, a Ministry of
Healthspokesperson
confirmed a statement from the Patent Office that the request was rejected
on the grounds that it "lacked technological inventiveness," according to
Reuters. The decision means that Brazil now could import less expensive,
generic versions of tenofovir because of World Trade
Organization regulations
(Grudgings, Reuters, 9/3).
The health ministry in April issued a decree signaling that it might reject
Gilead's patent request. The decree declared that the drug is "in the public
interest," adding that patenting the drug in Brazil would generate
"expectations of monopoly rights with an impact on the price of the
product." According to the health ministry, tenofovir accounts for 10% of
the government's spending on its HIV/AIDS treatment program. The government
provides antiretrovirals at no cost to people living with HIV/AIDS in
Brazil. This year, 31,300 people in Brazil are expected to be treated with
tenofovir at a cost of $1,387 per person. The annual cost per person for the
180,000 people included in Brazil's HIV/AIDS program is about $2,500 worth
of medicines each year (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS
Report,
4/14).
According to Reuters, Medecins Sans Frontieres in a
statement
said
that HIV/AIDS drug access will increase in Brazil and across the developing
world because of the patent rejection. Tido von Schoen-Angerer of MSF's Access
to Essential Medicines campaign said that
increased access to tenofovir is "absolutely crucial" and that Brazilian
production of antiretrovirals has helped to reduce costs in the past. He
added that MSF hopes "this will happen again." According to von
Schoen-Angerer, a World Health Organization -approved
Indian-made generic version of tenofovir costs $158 per person annually,
compared with the $1,378 Gilead charges in Brazil. Gilead did not comment
immediately on the decision (Reuters, 9/3).
Email this story to a friend
Link
to
this story. Print
this
story. Save this
story
in
my saved links.
______
purcell at berkeley.edu
uc berkeley school of law
- --
__________________
purcell at berkeley.edu
us#607.26.26.26.7
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
From the.solipsist at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:18:23 2008
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:18:23 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Disappointing judgment holds Harry Potter lexicon to
be infringement
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809090648i3c6f59a3yea9b9e70d2434e19@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All,
In a disappointing decision issued yesterday Judge Robert Patterson
held that the Harry Potter lexicon sought to be published by Steven
Vander Ark did not qualify as fair use. The judge did however hold
that this was a fact-specific decision, and that many other lexicons
and literary companions are well within the bounds of fair use. More
on this from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-judge-waves-gavel-says-avada-kedavra-to-harry-potter-lexicon.html
------------
Judge waves gavel, says Avada Kedavra to Harry Potter Lexicon
By Ryan Paul | Published: September 08, 2008 - 06:25PM CT
Steven Vander Ark's Harry Potter lexicon has vanished and may never be
seen again. The handy guide was not spirited away with the wave of a
wand: it was, instead, banned with the bang of a gavel. In a ruling
issued this morning, Judge Robert Patterson affirmed that Ark and his
publisher had failed to demonstrate that the reference text fell
within the scope of fair use.
Ark's lexicon began as a web site (now down) and quickly gained
popularity. Rowling herself was once a fan of the web site and has
previously lavished it with praise, gave it an award in 2004, and even
admitted to using it herself while she was writing some of the later
books in the series. The trouble began, however, when Ark decided to
turn the web site into a book which publisher RDR Books intended to
sell for $24.95 per copy. When Rowling learned of Ark's plans to
publish, she launched a lawsuit against the author and successfully
obtained an injunction against publication last year.
The lawsuit has shot sparks through the literary community and has
been condemned by fantasy literature enthusiasts and some of Rowling's
most ardent fans on the Internet. Rowling claims that publication of
the guide would harm her work and ruin the market for a future lexicon
that she planned to publish herself to raise money for charitable
causes. Although her plans to publish a Harry Potter companion book
for the benefit of charity is a noble aim, her lawsuit challenges the
most basic principles of fair use, and—according to some
critics—demonstrates a disappointing degree of pettiness.
One particularly vocal critic of the lawsuit is celebrated science
fiction novelist Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game. He
challenged the validity of the lawsuit earlier this year and contended
that Rowling's litigation posed a serious threat to time-honored
literary traditions.
"[The] Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who
have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the
book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of
scholarly comment," he wrote in an article. "This frivolous lawsuit
puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction.
Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any
scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's
complaining about."
Card also points out that Rowling permitted the publication of several
similar works while she was still writing new Harry Potter books. Such
supplementary guides, one of which Card contributed to himself,
promoted Rowling's books, he says, and helped increase sales.
Rowling, however, believes that the Lexicon lacked sufficient
commentary or analysis. "The proposed book took an enormous amount of
my work and added virtually no original commentary of its own," she
told Reuters. "Many books have been published which offer original
insights into the world of Harry Potter. The Lexicon just is not one
of them."
Patterson sided with Rowling, ruling that "the Lexicon appropriates
too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference
guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible
proliferation of works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive
for original authors to create new works." Patterson indicated that
the Lexicon's use of the Harry Potter novels is largely transformative
in nature, but its use of material from Rowling's companion books is
much less so. Ultimately, it was the Lexicon's extensive use of
verbatim copying that convinced the Judge to agree with Rowling. The
ruling does not itself block writers from authoring lexicons based on
fictional works. The judge cited several independently authored
fantasy companion books that meet the criteria for fair use, including
one about Narnia authored by Paul Ford.
"The Lexicon, an A-to-Z guide which synthesizes information from the
series and generally provides citations for location of that
information rather than offering commentary, is most comparable to the
comprehensive work of Paul F. Ford, Companion to Narnia: A Complete
Guide to the Magical World of C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia.
[..] The Companion to Narnia, however, is far more erudite and
informative than the Lexicon," the judge wrote. "It seems unlikely
that a publisher like HarperCollins would produce the Companion to
Narnia, which reveals storylines, plot twists, and the ultimate fates
of the characters in C.S. Lewis's original works, if it expected the
publication would reduce sales and enthusiasm for the original works.
Accordingly, the Lexicon does not present any potential harm to the
markets for the original Harry Potter works."
As a fantasy literature enthusiast, I am disappointed by Rowling's
unwillingness to achieve a reasonable compromise with Ark. She clearly
saw value in his work and could have even collaborated with him
instead of trying to create her own future lexicon from scratch.
Inventive borrowing is the lifeblood of the fantasy genre and her
attitude on the subject reflects some hypocrisy.
Fantasy author J.R.R. Tolkien, who is widely regarded as one of the
forefathers of the modern fantasy genre, borrowed liberally from
ancient mythology. Some names, places, and events that appear in The
Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were taken directly from the Kalevala, a
Finnish epic poem compiled by Elias Lonnrot. In turn, many fantasy
authors—including Rowling—have drawn ideas, themes, and imagery from
Tolkien's literature. The manner in which authors draw from a
collective pool of certain ideas is part of what makes the fantasy
genre so magical. That is one of the reasons why ensuring the
perpetuation of the public domain is essential to ensuring the future
robustness of the genre.
Rowling has also been accused of borrowing more blatantly from the
works of other contemporary authors. For instance, author Nancy
Stouffer—creator of a book called Rah and the Muggles and a character
named Larry Potter—claims that Rowling ripped off her books. Rowling
has vehemently denied Stouffer's allegations.
Rowling has emerged from court victorious, but it might be a pyrrhic
victory. She has earned the contempt of some former admirers and the
scorn of some in the literary community. Card, who used to be an
enthusiastic fan, thinks she is turning into the Wicked Witch of the
West. "Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and
courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz," he remarked.
From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 00:08:59 2008
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:08:59 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?ORG=3A_EC=27s_proposed_45-year_cop?=
=?windows-1252?q?yright_term_extension_will_result_in_80=25_of_per?=
=?windows-1252?q?formers_getting_between_50=A2_to_=8026=2E79_extra?=
=?windows-1252?q?_per_year?=
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809091138i2ed666c9vfb69593d10d33d9c@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All,
The Open Rights Group (in response to the European Commission's
proposed extension of copyright term) notes that "for the vast
majority [80%] of performers the projected extra sales income
resulting from term extension is likely to be meagre: from as little
as 50¢ each year in the first ten years, to as 'much' as €26.79 each
year."
Blog post: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/09/05/performers-likely-to-get-as-little-as-50%C2%A2-a-year-from-increased-term-of-copyright/
Submission to Commission:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/uploads/080829_ukipo_ectermextension.pdf
Commission's proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/term/ia_term_en.pdf
Bernt Hugenholtz's open letter to the EC:
http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf
The Ars Technica report on the ORG's submission:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-80-of-artists-would-get-30year-from-copyright-extension.html
80% of artists would get <€30/year from copyright extension
By Nate Anderson |
Published: September 08, 2008 - 09:45PM CT
The EU is considering a plan to extend musical copyrights for another
45 years ,
ostensibly to help out aging performers who are being cut off when the
current 50-year terms expire. But those musicians (can someone
introduce them to the concept of saving for retirement?) won't see
much of the new cash, according to the UK's Open Rights Group
.
Most performers will make less than €30 a year, even as major labels
and big stars take far more.
The Open Rights Group, a UK "grassroots technology advocacy
organization," is responding to a request for comments from the UK's
Intellectual Property Office. UKIPO wants to know how it should weigh
in on the EU-wide proposal, and the Open Rights Group's response is
clear: the proposal is a bad idea.
This was also the conclusion reached by a leading European copyright
expert, Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, in a paper actually paid for in
part by the European Commission. (When the Commission simply ignored
the paper in making its policy proposal, Hugenholtz went public with
his astonishment and displeasure
.)
It was also the conclusion reached by the Gowers Review
in the UK,
which took a wide-angle look at intellectual property issues and
concluded that copyright term extensions weren't necessary or
justified by the facts.
In its analysis, the Open Rights Group focuses on one of the key
problems presented by the EU: aging musicians whose royalties run out
just as they become old and infirm. According to the group, a 45-year
term extension is hardly the best way to address the issue.
"The Commission makes much of the challenging financial situation
facing aging performers," it says. "While we do not accept that IP law
is an appropriate mechanism to deal with this situation, as we will
demonstrate in the second section of this submission, it also turns
out to be a very inefficient one."
That's because 90 percent of the extra money generated during the
extended term will go to music labels. Of the 10 percent that goes
directly to artists, eight or nine percent will go to the "top 20
percent of earning performers"—in other words, the most successful
groups, which have already made millions.
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. However, a
large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From nirupillai at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 14:28:27 2008
From: nirupillai at gmail.com (Nirupama Pillai)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:28:27 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Submissions: Socio-Legal Review,
National Law School of India University
Message-ID: <720079100809100158t1e84f8d9hb53a73fa01d976f5@mail.gmail.com>
The *Socio-Legal Review* is a student-edited, peer-reviewed
interdisciplinary journal published annually by the Law and Society
Committee, an activity based committee of the Student Bar Association,
National Law School of India University, Bangalore and supported by the
Modern Law Review, London. The journal is edited by a five member Board of
Editors selected from amongst the students of the National Law School of
India University, Bangalore.
The Journal aims to be a forum that involves, promotes and engages students
and scholars to express and share their ideas and opinions on themes and
methodologies relating to the interface of law and society.Through this
effort, the journal also hopes to fill the lacunae relating to academic
debate on socio-legal matters among law students.
The *Socio-Legal Review* thus features guest articles by eminent scholars as
well as student essays, providing an interface for the two communities to
interact. This year's issue, out in September 2008 features a new section -
'Conversations' in which Roger Cotterrell and Ofer Raban offer their views
on Brian Tamanaha's book -'Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of
Law'.
The *Socio-Legal Review* invites submissions for its 5th volume to be
released in August 2009.
*Instructions for Contributors*
- The Editorial Board has not imposed a theme for the forthcoming issue.
A submission is welcome as long as it fits within the general mandate of the
journal.
- The manuscript should be on any theme exploring the interface between
law and the society. The Journal subscribes to an expansive view on the
interpretation of "law and society", 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 takes
cognizance of legal institutions, institutions of governance, power
structures in social commentary and so on.
- Each volume of the *Socio-Legal Review* consists of Articles, Comments
and Laws' Translations. Articles should not normally exceed 8000 words.
Law's Translations consists of 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. Contributions to Law's Translations should
be within 5000 words. An abstract of about 300 words should accompany the
contribution.
- All contributions submitted to the journal should be original and
should not be simultaneously considered by any other publication.
- The name of the author should not appear anywhere in the
submission.Contributors should include their name(s), contact address,
professional affiliation, acknowledgements and other biographical
information in a separate title page, to facilitate the anonymous review
process.
- Citations in the *Socio-Legal Review* conform to The Bluebook: A
Uniform System of Citation (18th edn., 2005) and we request submissions to
conform to this method of citation.
- Manuscripts that are provisionally selected are forwarded to at least
two experts for peer review. Socio-Legal Review follows a double blind peer
review process, where both the referees and author(s) remain anonymous
throughout the process.The practice of peer review is to ensure that work of
quality and merit is published. All manuscripts received are evaluated by
the Editor-in-Chief and another editor on the Board of Editors. Besides an
assessment of whether they fit within the mandate and scope of the journal,
the key parameters include content and analysis, originality, structure,
style, clarity of expression and grammar. Authors of manuscripts rejected at
this stage will be informed within approximately one month after the receipt
of their manuscript
- The last date for submission is *November 1, 2008* Submission is,
however, on a rolling basis. Submissions made after this date may be
considered for publication in the next volume.
- Contributions should be mailed in a soft copy to *slr at nls.ac.in.*
- For any clarifications, please mail us at *slr at nls.ac.in* or visit us
at *www.sociolegalreview.in*
- Past issues of the *Socio-Legal Review *are available online at *
www.sociolegalreview.in*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080910/8e4af31e/attachment.html
From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Sep 11 18:27:52 2008
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:27:52 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Materials from (and report on) the A2K3 Conference
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809110557q4a6a376ey546445f8c8079d6c@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lea Shaver
Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 00:59
Subject: [A2k] Materials from A2K3 Conference, September 8-10
To: a2k at lists.essential.org
- --
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The ISP's third annual Access to Knowledge conference (A2K3) has just
concluded in Geneva. Summaries of all the panels and materials
submitted by the participants are available at http://a2k3.org/.
Thanks to everyone who helped make the event such a success!
Best,
Lea
- --
Lea Bishop Shaver
A2K Program Director
Information Society Project
Yale Law School
203-432-7046 (office)
203-535-2560 (mobile)
- ---------
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1214&print=1
Intellectual Property Watch
9 September 2008
Access To Knowledge Conference Begins Addressing New Challenges With New Ideas
By Kaitlin Mara
A key conference on access to knowledge (A2K) opened Monday, with
veterans of the A2K movement mixed with many new faces and all
participants hoping to find new ideas over the next few days, as they
seek to clarify the best paths forward.
"The great insight of this movement," said Yale Law School Information
Society Project Director Jack Balkin during the welcome address, "was
bringing together a wide range of people who didn't even imagine that
they were working on similar goals, dispersed as they were in their
focus on health, science, movies, music, culture, telecommunications
policy, innovation, fair competition, freedom of the press and
transparency in governance."
The access to knowledge (A2K) movement, which emerged in the early
2000s, "helped us to see we were all after the same things," said
Balkin, but "precisely because of this success, [the movement] is at a
crossroads."
Maximiliano Santa Cruz of the Chilean mission in Geneva noted that the
intellectual property scene in Geneva four years ago was very
different. Changes since then include a public health amendment to the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects on
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), agreement on a World
Intellectual Property Organization Development Agenda, and the recent
adoption of the World Health Organization Global Strategy on Public
Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, all of which he said
were informed by the A2K movement.
But how the initiative will remain relevant in the future is the
question begun to be answered yesterday. The third conference,
organised by the Yale Internet Society Project, Geneva think tank
IQsensato and others, is taking place in Geneva from 8 to 10
September. Yale hosted its first A2K conference in 2006.
New Voices; New Directions
Some highlights of discussion throughout the day included future
funding of A2K activities, the expansion of the A2K effort into new
agreements, rules and regulations (such as international standards),
concrete efforts to build capacity in developing countries, and new
ideas on how to exploit linkages between intellectual property rights
and international trade that had previously been thought barriers to
access to knowledge.
Financing will be a key upcoming issue, noted Michael Geist, a law
professor at the University of Ottawa. "These initiatives haven't
happened by accident," he said, noting that foundation funding had
played "a crucial role in allowing the voices to come together."
Teresa Hackett of Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net)
echoed this concern, saying civil society groups are less well-funded
than private interests and lobby groups, so creative solutions must be
found with funders to allow continuing participation.
Others mentioned new angles in the access movement might need to
examine as it makes its way into the future. Tim Hubbard, a leading
scientist with the Human Genome Project, noted that a rising question
for A2K advocates in the future was going to be balancing the drive
for access to information with the need for privacy. With human
genomes, even summaries of the data needed for statistical analysis
are detailed enough to identify the individual who donated genetic
material. It will be necessary either to accept that this kind of data
will be public, or to find a way for data to be filtered through a
trusted third party to prevent the misappropriation of private
information.
Margaret Chon of Seattle University Law School presented her recent
research on standard setting and certification as "increasingly the
way we regulate things globally." For every access issue, she noted,
there is a corresponding standard: for innovation systems, there are
open source standards; for climate change, clean development
mechanisms regulating emissions standards; for public health, food
safety standards.
These standards are often made and managed by non-governmental
organisations, notably the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), but also several focussed non-profit bodies
managing, for instance, "fair trade" certifications. On the one hand
this management style allows space for grassroots leadership and new
entrepreneurs, Chon said, but on the other hand it is unclear who
holds standards bodies accountable, and the shear number of bodies and
standards can obfuscate what any one in particular means.
Gabrielle Marceau of the WTO secretariat noted that standards are a
good way to bring ideas from outside the WTO system into its law. If a
member state puts up a trade restriction, but does so in order to
comply with an international standard, it is considered to be
acceptable at the WTO, she explained. But Chon said it is important
that standards be used to encourage not just access to knowledge but
access to justice.
Also generating interest was a statement by Catherine Bennett of the
National Foreign Trade Council, the first member of a private sector
association to speak at an access to knowledge conference. Her
organisation's stakeholder support for intellectual property is borne
out of a desire for the kinds of infrastructure, transparency and
enforcement they need to feel comfortable with foreign direct
investment.
"The private sector is weary," she said, "of the confrontational
nature of intellectual property." She added that her organisation was
"interested in a dialogue" but that putting too many demands on the
private sector "will drive the golden goose away," reducing the
foreign direct investment (FDI) developing countries need. Several
audience members raised concerns that FDI has been shown not to
encourage technology transfer in the least developed countries.
Sisule Musungu of IQsensato noted that access to knowledge needed to
focus not only on intangible assets such as intellectual property
rights and technical barriers to trade, but also on physical goods.
"If we are just concerned about software," he said, "how do we ensure
that the one-laptop per child computers move to where they are
supposed to be?"
Richard Owens of WIPO said whether details of technical assistance
provided by the UN agency are made accessible is traditionally up to
the national government who requested it, but he expected this would
be reviewed by the incoming WIPO director general.
Marisella Ouma of the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge
Network presented an innovative project in Africa to deal with these
necessary capacity building issues. Her group is examining the way
that copyright law can be amended to facilitate access to educational
material, noting that "what happens in practice influences A2K" as
much as what's on the books, and further noting that while wireless
telephony has revolutionised the A2K movement it is important to
consider how many people actually have access. She noted that her lack
of broadband internet at home presents a real barrier to accessing
information online, due to long download times.
Other innovative ideas were presented by Thiru Balasubramaniam of
Knowledge Ecology International - who presented a KEI proposal for a
WTO agreement on the supply of knowledge as a public good, which would
use "voluntary but binding commitments to enhance the supply of a
heterogeneous" set of global public goods - and by Molly Beutz of New
York Law School and Christian Courtis of the International Commission
on Jurists, who discussed the application of the UN Universal
Declaration on Human Rights to access issues.
Andrew Rens of the Shuttleworth Foundation had reservations on this
use of human rights discourse, asking if it were simply a needless
rhetorical change, when the language of development, and in particular
economic development, is already strong enough to incentivise action
on A2K.
Over the next two days, attendees to the conference will be discussing
in detail different specific applications of access to knowledge to
varying areas of intellectual property, including possible alternative
models of business organisation.
The hundreds of participants from around the world include government
and intergovernmental officials, academics, lawyers, human rights and
health activists and a wide range of non-governmental organisations,
entrepreneurs and corporate representatives, think tanks, librarians,
and funders.
Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara at ip-watch.ch.
From prabhuram at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 08:56:47 2008
From: prabhuram at gmail.com (Prabhu Ram)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:56:47 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder
In-Reply-To: <68752c9f0809142024h2d540359jc23ccddca2cbfe51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68752c9f0809142024h2d540359jc23ccddca2cbfe51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68752c9f0809142026r26f9d943l6b0ca40cbf8ed26c@mail.gmail.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder
"It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to
promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported
research or development" and "to promote collaboration between commercial
concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities."
— The Bayh-Dole Act, a k a the University Small Business Patent Procedures
Act
THE law of unintended consequences is perhaps less a "law" than a simple
statement of fact: We cannot accurately predict all the results of our
actions. We may do something with the best of intentions, and sometimes even
accomplish the good toward which we aim. Yet, at the same time, we are all
too often surprised by results that didn't occur to us beforehand.
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 started out with the best of intentions. By
clearing away the thicket of conflicting rules and regulations at various
federal agencies, it set out to encourage universities to patent and license
results of federally financed research. For the first time, academicians
were able to profit personally from the market transfer of their work. For
the first time, academia could be powered as much by a profit motive as by
the psychic reward of new discovery.
University "tech transfer" offices have boomed from a couple dozen before
the law's passage to nearly 300 today. University patents have leapt a
hundredfold. Professors are stepping away from the lab and lecture hall to
navigate the thicket of venture capital, business regulations and commercial
competition.
None of these are necessarily negative outcomes. But more than a
quarter-century after President Jimmy
Cartersigned
it into law, the Bayh-Dole Act, sponsored by the former Senators
Birch Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, and Robert Dole, Republican of Kansas, is
under increasing scrutiny by swelling ranks of critics. The primary concern
is that its original intent — to infuse the American marketplace with the
fruits of academic innovation — has also distorted the fundamental mission
of universities.
In the past, discovery for its own sake provided academic motivation, but
today's universities function more like corporate research laboratories.
Rather than freely sharing techniques and results, researchers increasingly
keep new findings under wraps to maintain a competitive edge. What used to
be peer-reviewed is now proprietary. "Share and share alike" has devolved
into "every laboratory for itself."
In trying to power the innovation economy, we have turned America's
universities into cutthroat business competitors, zealously guarding the
very innovations we so desperately want behind a hopelessly tangled web of
patents and royalty licenses.
Of course, there is precedent for scientific secrecy, notes Daniel S.
Greenberg , author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions
of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press, 2007). When James
Watsonand
Francis
Crickwere
homing in on DNA's double-helix structure in the 1950s, they zealously
guarded their work from prying eyes until they could publish their findings,
to be certain that they would get the credit for making the discovery.
"They didn't try to patent it," Mr. Greenberg notes, "but somebody doing the
same work today would certainly take a crack at patenting the double helix."
In fact, it was the life sciences — in particular, biotechnology — that
started universities down the slippery commercial slope in the first place.
Even before the Bayh-Dole Act, pharmaceutical companies were eagerly
trolling campuses, looking for projects to finance. After the law was
passed, they stepped up their efforts, but now with renewed zeal for keeping
potential trade secrets from competitors.
While patients have benefited from the growing supply of new medications,
the universities have obtained patents not only for the actual substances
but also for the processes and methods used to make them, potentially
hampering discovery of even more beneficial treatments.
"Bayh-Dole tore down the taboos that existed against universities engaging
in overtly commercial activity. Universities really thought that they were
going to make it rich," said Jennifer Washburn, author of "University Inc.:
The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education" (Basic Books, 2005). "Each
school was convinced that if they came up with that one blockbuster
invention, they could solve all their financial problems."
Ms. Washburn says that was "extremely wrong-headed." Initially reacting to
the law by slapping patents on every possible innovation, universities
quickly discovered that patents were an expensive proposition. The fees and
legal costs involved in obtaining a single patent can run upward of $15,000,
and that doesn't count the salaries of administrative staff members. Instead
of bringing home the bacon, university tech transfer offices were throwing
money into the void with little hope of returns.
To date, Ms. Washburn says, data gathered by the Association of University
Technology Managers, a trade group, show that fewer than half of the 300
research universities actively seeking patents have managed to break even
from technology transfer efforts. Instead, two-thirds of the revenue tracked
by the association has gone to only 13 institutions.
Part of the problem has been a lingering misunderstanding about where the
value lies in innovation. Patenting a new basic science technique, or
platform technology, puts it out of the reach of graduate students who might
have made tremendous progress using it.
Similarly, exclusive licensing of a discovery to a single company thwarts
that innovation's use in any number of other fields. R. Stanley Williams, a
nanotechnologist from
Hewlett-Packard,
testified to Congress in 2002 that much of the academic research to which
H.P. has had difficulty gaining access could be licensed to several
companies without eroding its intellectual property value.
"Severe disagreements have arisen over conflicting interpretations of the
Bayh-Dole Act," he said. "Large U.S.-based corporations have become so
disheartened and disgusted with the situation, they are now working with
foreign universities, especially the elite institutions in France, Russia
and China."
THE issue is further clouded by "reach through" licenses, complex
arrangements used by many tech transfer offices. A reach-through lets the
patent holder claim a share of any profits that result from using, say, an
enabling technology, even if those profits come several steps down the
market transfer line. Several universities are already embroiled in messy
lawsuits trying to sort out who is entitled to what.
Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of campus commercialization is that
research decisions are now being based on possible profits, not on the
inherent value of knowledge. "Blue sky" research — the kind of basic
experimentation that leads to a greater understanding of how the world works
— has largely been set aside in favor of projects considered to have more
immediate market potential.
In academia's continuing pursuit of profit, the wonder of simple
serendipitous discovery has been left on the curb.
Janet Rae-Dupree writes about science and emerging technology in Silicon
Valley.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080915/cb2c89f8/attachment.html
From shirishag75 at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 10:08:15 2008
From: shirishag75 at gmail.com (shirish)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:08:15 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law]
=?utf-8?q?ORG=3A_EC=27s_proposed_45-year_copyright_?=
=?utf-8?q?term_extension_will_result_in_80=25_of_performers_gettin?=
=?utf-8?q?g_between_50=C2=A2_to_=E2=82=AC26=2E79_extra_per_year?=
Message-ID: <511f47f50809152138x1a2bb379ma4c7d6467b59bf1f@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,
I have been reading commons-law for quite sometime now. I work/play with
free software and feel that the freedoms enshrined should also be in other
spheres of activity such as art, literature and other media. I am aware of
organisations like the EFF, Creative Commons, Open Net Initiatives and other
such positive groups and institutions which are working in that space.
I am not a lawyer but a simple commoner who believes that the dangers of
monopolies should be avoided at all and any costs.
I was frankly very disturbed when I saw the post from Mr. Pranesh Prakash
about the recent happenings. Do we need more copyright or less?
So with my biases and perhaps flawed reasoning (or not ;) ) I put up a blog
post about what I feel at
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/scarcity-and-copyright/
It may be right, wrong, leftist or whichever way one sees the ideology, I
hope to be criticized for I'm sure there are many many things which I have
no idea/knowledge about, my reasoning may absolutely be flawed but what is
the way forward for a commoner. Do you guys see any hope for us or would the
rich only become more richer.
Looking forward to some more light on the matter.
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal
This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080916/a7fc0f68/attachment.html
From the.solipsist at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 10:49:58 2008
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:49:58 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Merged banks' names cybersquatted
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809172219u43dad409sdaebba8c01e8c93b@mail.gmail.com>
>From the Beeb:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621647.stm
"Merged banks' names cybersquatted"
Internet addresses corresponding to recent bank mergers are already
being hoarded and sold online.
In "cybersquatting", likely addresses are bought cheaply in the hope
of selling to the businesses involved, or as a medium for advertising.
Domain names for the merged Bank of America/Merrill Lynch as well as
for Lloyds TSB/HBOS have been snapped up.
In one case, the domain name has already been listed on eBay, with the
site directing visitors to the auction.
As reports of Lehman Brothers' intent to sell itself first surfaced
last Friday, cybersquatters had already spotted Barclays, HSBC and
Bank of America as potential buyers.
Accordingly, barclayslehman.com, hsbclehman.com,
hsbclehmanbrothers.com and bofalehman.com had been acquired.
With the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America this week,
cybersquatters registered bankofamericamerrilllynch.com and
bofaml.com.
In the UK, speculation surrounding the merger of Lloyds TSB with HBOS
prompted yet more cybersquatting, so that now lloydstsbhbos.com and
hboslloydstsb.com are owned.
"It shows how there are opportunists out there waiting to pounce on
any event," says Jonathan Robinson, chief operating officer of
NetNames.
"We've seen it in the case of celebrity with David Beckham going to LA
Galaxy, we've seen it in the case of tragedy, with Princess Diana's
death. There's a subtle twist on the whole thing now, which is the
anticipation of the event."
'Click-through value'
Many cybersquatters have pay-per-click ads as revenue generators while
awaiting potential buyers.
"Back in the mists of time, these names had a capital value and could
be exchanged for cash," says Mr Robinson.
"There's another value they have nowadays and that's a click-through
value, a cash flow that they generate in the whole world of online
advertising.
"There's even automated software that will populate a website with
relevant content."
The speculative HSBC/Lehman site, for example, looks like a news site
about the myriad mergers and movements but features Google adverts
along the margins.
In the case of bankofamericamerrilllynch.com, the object is more
apparent; a visit to the site directs visitors to an eBay auction in
which the domain name is for sale.
"The lesson has been there for a while for anyone working in the
mergers and acquisitions area that this is a key area to focus on in
the due diligence process," Mr Robinson says.
"One can't wait until after the deal is announced or the product is launched."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7621647.stm
Published: 2008/09/17 17:32:18 GMT
(c) BBC MMVIII
From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Sep 19 16:51:29 2008
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:51:29 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
(Auckland, NZ)
Message-ID: <4785f1e20809190421v511e9bf2i91daeff46c2d103f@mail.gmail.com>
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=SC0809/S00059.htm
ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
Friday, 19 September 2008, 10:25 am
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
Joint Media Statement by Telecommunications Carriers' Forum;
InternetNZ; Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand;
Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand; New Zealand
Computer Society; Women in Technology
Auckland, 19 September 2008
ICT Industry Moves To Address Copyright Confusion
"A deeply flawed law that undermines fundamental rights and simply
will not work."
That is what the telecommunications industry, internet service
providers, user groups, internet advocates and IT professionals think
of parts of the recently passed Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment
Act.
The TCF is today announcing steps to create a Code of Practice to
guide ISPs and internet users through a legislative minefield created
by section 92A of the Copyright Act.
"Section 92A has achieved one thing, and one thing only", TCF CEO
Ralph Chivers said today, "uniting the ICT sector and others who will
be affected in an unprecedented show of solidarity against it".
"While we recognise that the Act has introduced a number of positive
measures, some hastily inserted last-minute changes have placed an
unacceptable burden on internet service providers and have the
potential to significantly undermine the legal rights of internet
users", Mr Chivers said.
Section 92A, when it is brought into force, will require ISPs to
"reasonably implement" a policy to disconnect "in appropriate
circumstances" the internet services of users who have repeatedly
downloaded or uploaded infringing music, movies, games and other
copyright material.
"The Act gives no guidance on what 'reasonably implement' or 'in
appropriate circumstances' mean," Mr Chivers said. "This leaves the
door wide open to those who seek disconnection of an alleged repeat
infringer based on flimsy evidence, or worse, allegations alone."
"Identifying repeat offenders will not be easy. A complex data
matching exercise will be required, and even then it will not always
be clear who the real offender is, particularly when an internet
account is used by a family, a business or a school. The potential for
an alleged offender to be denied natural justice is significant. For
these reasons, a court order backed up by solid evidence would
normally be required before taking such invasive action."
"Businesses support the need to protect intellectual property, and we
are sympathetic to the significant problems the music, movie and
gaming industries face. However, balance is the key. Protecting one
person's interests at the expense of others is completely
inappropriate," Chivers said.
InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson agrees. "The potential
for infringement of human rights is a significant concern to us.
Arguably one of the great benefits of the Internet has been the
strengthening of human rights and the development of democratic
freedoms around the world. However, this law change has the potential
for Internet users to have their service disconnected on very weak
grounds, undermining the fundamental right of 'innocent until proven
guilty'."
"Rights holders and the industry need to work together, to find more
pragmatic solutions. We need to preserve the service providers'
obligations to offer unencumbered access to the Internet for their
customers but at the same time find ways to adequately protect
copyright," Davidson said.
Internet Service Providers Association President Jamie Baddeley
likened the situation to putting private security guards in to quell a
riot without body armour. "The worst aspect of this law is that it
provides no protection to ISPs who try and implement the law's
requirements in good faith. They are exposed to legal risk from their
customers if they act, and to legal risk from copyright holders if
they do not. They are caught in the middle without any form of legal
protection and will be required to go through a costly and complex
process to solve a problem that is not of their making," Mr Baddeley
said. "This has the potential to put some of our smaller innovative
members out of business - undoing a lot of the great work the
government has previously done to develop a more competitive
environment."
"It is unacceptable that Parliament has placed the burden of sorting
out this mess on ISPs," TUANZ CEO Ernie Newman said. "ISPs in New
Zealand are socially responsible; it's not their job to interpret and
enforce vague laws, particularly when they interfere with their
customers' rights. Worse still, the definition of ISP in the Act
captures schools, universities, and libraries – in fact just about
anyone who provides internet access to someone else. The loose
language Parliament has included in the legislation will require an
army of lawyers to interpret, at the expense of ISPs and ultimately,
their customers."
"The New Zealand Computer Society strongly supports protection of
Intellectual Property, but this isn't the way to do it", NZCS's Chief
Executive Paul Matthews added. "You could use the same flawed
justification that underpins this law to force The Warehouse to ban
someone from shopping there for their food and clothes just because
they are accused of copying a few DVDs that they have bought. Yes,
copyright infringement is wrong, but it needs to be proven first and
the penalty kept in proportion. Termination of all internet access in
this day and age of online education, social networking and electronic
services is a huge penalty," Matthews said. "This is simply bad law
whichever way you look at it."
Cheryl Horo from Women in Technology pointed to the value of solving
the underlying issues. "Ultimately it is in all of our interests to
ensure that artists, as with our technology businesses, receive a fair
return on their investments. New Zealand's film, music and gaming
industries are increasingly dependent on advanced information
technology - it is in all of our interests to help these sectors grow
and develop. Education will play an important role in progressing this
issue."
Recognising the difficulties created by s92A, the TCF is developing a
Code of Practice aimed at providing a consistent and workable approach
to meeting the requirements of the Act.
"We are grateful for the early work done on this issue by InternetNZ,"
Mr Chivers said. "We will build on this work to create an industry
code that has wide buy-in, so that users are appropriately protected
and ISPs are able to continue providing services without unnecessary
legal risk."
"The TCF will continue to consult widely as we develop the Code,
including with copyright holder groups. We accept that copyright
infringement is a problem and we will do our part to ensure it is
appropriately managed," Chivers said.
"In our view, it makes sense to delay the introduction of section 92A
to give time for the Code to be developed. In our discussions with
copyright holders and government we have stressed the need to find a
better way of managing this problem – section 92A as it stands simply
won't cut it. Regardless, it will be the responsibility of the next
Parliament to repair the problems caused by this deeply flawed
legislation."
From ramanchima at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 16:33:03 2008
From: ramanchima at gmail.com (Raman Chima)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:33:03 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] The Indian Journal of Law and Technology -
Information and Call for Submissions 2008-09
Message-ID: <2fbb8fe0809240403gb1e98d5ub41d21926caca8bb@mail.gmail.com>
{Apologies for cross-posting on the Reader List}
The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, published by the Law and
Technology Committee of the Student Bar Association of the National
Law School of India University, Bangalore, is India's first and only
journal devoted to the field of law and technology. Articles are
selected for publication after being peer reviewed by an external
Article Review Board consisting of eminent academicians and
practitioners in the field of technology law. The Journal is managed
and edited by an Editorial Board comprising of students from the
National Law School of India University, selected annually on the
basis of editing skill and expertise in technology law.
The Journal accepts submissions in the form of articles, notes,
comments, and book reviews on a host of legal issues regarding the
interface between law and technology, including e-commerce, cyber
crime, biotechnology, bioethics, competition law, outsourcing,
intellectual property, relevant public policy, and law and society
issues posed by technology, communications and evidentiary technology,
with particular emphasis on issues affecting developing nations.
Past issues of the Journal have featured articles by distinguished
authors such as Yochai Benkler, Donald S. Chisum, Raymond T. Nimmer,
John Frow, Lawrence Liang, and Shamnad Basheer, among others. The
forthcoming 2008 issue of the Journal features:
• A special comment entitled 'Saving the Internet' by Jonathan
Zittrain, Harvard Professor of Internet Law and Co-Director of the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
• An article on Data Protection Efforts in India by Latha R. Nair,
Partner, KNS Partners, New Delhi.
• A review of Thomas Schultz's 'Information Technology and
Arbitration: A Practitioner's Guide' by Promod Nair, an Associate with
Herbert Smith LLP's International Arbitration Group.
• An article on a way forward with respect to Database Rights by Deepu
Jacob Thomas and Prasan Dhar.
Submissions are invited for Volume 5 of the Journal, which will be
published in March–April 2009. The Journal follows a rolling
submissions policy with the deadline for the 2009 issue being 31st of
October of this year; manuscripts received after this date will be
reviewed for publication in the subsequent issue. The Journal welcomes
articles from a variety of viewpoints, and greatly encourages
submissions which respond to content previously published in the
Journal. All submissions may be e-mailed to ijltsubmit at nls.ac.in with
a CC to ijlt2009 at gmail.com.
Information regarding the journal, including subscription and
submission information can be found at
http://www.nls.ac.in/students/IJLT. Abstracts of articles published in
the current issue, and full texts of past articles, are also
available. For any further information concerning the Journal's
editorial policies, or subscription details, kindly contact us at
ijltedit at nls.ac.in.
Sincerely,
Raman Jit Singh Chima
Chief Editor,
The Indian Journal of Law and Technology.
From ramanchima at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 20:32:06 2008
From: ramanchima at gmail.com (Raman Chima)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:32:06 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] The Indian Journal of Law and Technology -
Information and Call for Submissions 2008-09
Message-ID: <2fbb8fe0809240802u1e1615b3s679270972e9456d7@mail.gmail.com>
Hello again all,
Apologies, but needed to make a small clarification concerning the
last post - the deadlines for submissions to the Journal for it's next
issue is November 15th of this year, not October 31st as stated in the
last post.
Sincerely,
Raman.
From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 23:38:14 2008
From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:38:14 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Invitation to The National Public Meeting on Software
Patents, India
Message-ID: <35f96d470809291108o46d42470l39f53f5232d771bc@mail.gmail.com>
*Please Circulate widely*
With Usual apologies for X-posting
On behalf of the organizers,
Free Software Users Group- Bangalore
cordially invites you to
The National Public Meeting on Software Patents
====================================
==Venue==
2nd Floor, Ecumenical Resource Centre,
United Theological College,
Millers Road, Benson Town.
(Behind Cantonment Railway Station)
Bangalore–560046
==Time==
10:00–17:00
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Software patents in India occupy a contentious and indeterminate legal
space. While recent amendments to the Patent Act have sought to bring
our law in conformity with WTO-mandated standards, these amendments have
shied from pronouncing conclusively on the patentability of software.
The result is an equivocation in the law which is being wrestled
aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys
and the Patent Office in favour of granting software patents. Unheard,
and so unrepresented in this powerful triad are the interests of
millions of citizen-consumers who are either presumed too ignorant to be
credited with a view on the issue, or are presumed to be irrelevant to
the determination of issues which are seen as purely "business" matters
(as opposed to "citizen" matters).
Software is everywhere you look (and many places you never think
of looking). With the explosion of low-cost computing devices (think
mobile phones and iPods), software has leaked out of its traditional
home—the PC—and begun infiltrating various aspects of our lives. From
traffic signals to toilet commodes in some countries, refrigerators to
railway tickets, vacuum cleaners and electronic voting machines, TVs,
refrigerators and electronic pacemakers, inanimate objects of all sizes
are humming to themselves, chattering amongst themselves in an
intricate, highly complex tongue called 'software' that few of us can
ever hope to understand. On the impulses of software, we stop or move on
streets, fill up on petrol, and elect governments. Someone's heart
beats. Someone else receives land records on a village kiosk. Someone is
standing by helplessly for fourteen years (the un-evergreened term of a
patent) because software failed to factor in her disability.
There are big stakes involved in the control of software in an era
when software is becoming increasingly central to the way we humans
organize our lives and inhabit a democracy. At one level this is about
preserving the right of agency and self-direction that citizens have in
their own lives. At another, it is about the right not to be silenced
when our long-fought democratic republic is at risk of being diminished
by a few lines of software in a machine. Whether or not we are all in
fact capable of deciphering software is inessential. Those of us who are
ought not to be denied the freedom to interrogate, tinker and improve.
Patents have the effect of adding an additional layer of 'protection'
to already existing copyright protection of software, while
simultaneously overriding the various affordances and safeguards built
into copyright law. For instance, the right of "fair dealing" under
copyright law permits users to examine and modify any software in order
to make it interoperable with other software. This is an extremely
potent right that reasserts our right to intervene in the shaping of our
surroundings. It is also one of the rights that is most imperiled by
software patents.
The present "public hearing" on software patents is an invitation
for dialogue on the various issue surrounding software patents.
Although the Patent Office had scheduled a public consultation on its
Draft Patent Manual to be held in Bangalore in August this year, that
meeting was abruptly cancelled (or postponed indefinitely, or to an
unannounced date—we can't be sure) without any reasons having been
assigned by the Patent Office. This signals either of two unpleasant
scenarios: first, the Patent Office is proceeding with its consultations
in an extremely mechanical fashion, not intending inputs received in the
course of these consultations to qualitatively impact their functioning
in any way; or secondly, perhaps the Patent Office underestimates the
amount that citizens living in the IT capital of India might have to say
on the subject of software patents.
It is our attempt in this public hearing to organize the kind of
consultation that the Indian Patent Office ought to have conducted. We
hope also hereby, to serve as a gentle but firm reminder to the Patent
Office that its task is as yet undone.
==Agenda==
1000–1100
Presentation on the principles of patent law and
software patents
Sudhir Krishnaswamy
(National Law School)
Prabir Purkayastha
(Delhi Science Forum)
Nagarjuna G.
(Free Software Foundation of India)
1100–1130
Discussion on software patents in the Indian context:
Indian Patent Act, and the draft patent manual
Prashant Iyengar
(Alternative Law Forum)
Venkatesh Hariharan
(Red Hat)
1130–1150
Tea break
1150–1240
Discussion on patents and the development sector
(freedom of speech, open standards, healthcare, biotech, agro-sector,
etc.)
Sunil Abraham
(Centre for Internet and Society)
Anivar Aravind
(Movingrepublic, FSUG-Bangalore)
Others
1240–1300
Presentation on the software patents that have been
granted so far in India
Pranesh Prakash
(Centre for Internet and Society)
1300–1400
Lunch break
1400–1700
Open House
T. Ramakrishna
(National Law School)
Abhas Abhinav
(DeepRoot Linux)
Joseph Mathew
(Special It advisor, Govt of Kerala)
Sreekanth S. Rameshaiah
(Mahiti Infotech)
Vinay Sreenivasa
(IT for Change)
Any others who wish to speak
==Organizers==
Centre for Internet and Society; Free Software Users Group-Bangalore;
Free Software Foundation of India; SPACE; IT for Change; Alternative
Law Forum; Delhi Science Forum; Movingrepublic; Sarai/CSDS; OpenSpace,
; Swathanthra Malayalam Computing; Servelots - Janastu; Mahiti; DeepRoot
Linux; Wiki Ocean; Turtle Linux Lab; Zyxware Technologies; INSAF; Aneka
Anivar Aravind
+91 9449009908
--
Any responsible politician should be encouraging a home grown Free
Software industry because it creates the basis for future jobs.
Learning Windows is like learning to eat every meal at McDonalds