From jeebesh at sarai.net Thu Jul 2 10:46:28 2009 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:46:28 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: The schizo-politics of The Pirate Bay, Inc. Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: nettime at kein.org > From: Rasmus Fleischer > Date: 1 July 2009 10:09:25 PM GMT+05:30 > Resent-To: Nettime > To: nettime-l at kein.org > Subject: The schizo-politics of The Pirate Bay, Inc. > > ?YOU FUCKING CORPORATE SELL OUT RATS!? Users of The Pirate Bay are > raging. > About a thousand comments were posted at The Pirate Bay?s blog > during the > first day after the news, probably 90-95 % expressing sadness or > anger over > the supposed sell-out. Some mainstream commentators in Sweden, on > the other > hand, greeted this as a step towards the abandonment of digital > piracy. > > We are used to imagine The Pirate Bay as a legendary entity fighting > an epic > battle, on behalf of the millions of file-sharers. However, it is not > exactly a legendary entity that is being sold. It is something > different. So > what is about to be sold? > > ?The Pirate Bay? is today, among other things: > * A domain name > * A web site > * An ad selling business > * A blog > * The world?s largest bittorrent tracker > * A clothing store > * Three persons > * A swarm > * A symbol > > ?The Pirate Bay? must be defined as an assemblage. Any of the listed > parts > would, on its own, be powerless. Only through its connections, the > assemblage becomes so powerful. However, all the parts are not > needed all > the time. Two are enough to make up the practice of bittorrent file- > sharing: > a swarm of file-sharers, and a tracker to connect them. > Many file-sharers are using The Pirate Bay?s tracker services > without even > visiting the website. Other indexing websites, like Mininova, are > using The > Pirate Bay?s tracker. Technically speaking, The Pirate Bay?s website > has > always been rather redundant. But the website is a platform for > connecting > two other parts: The commercial part of the ads, which are needed to > finance > the large costs for bandwidth and hardware, and the political part of > linking to current side-projects and publishing sporadic blog posts. > > This assemblage is now being disassembled and reassembled, in one > way or > another. That means something else than a ?sell-out? of all the > parts. All > the details of the affair are not clear yet, but to clear up the > picture, we > should first consider each part for itself, and ask three simple > questions: > 1) Is it ownable?; 2) Is it sellable?; 3) Is it copyable? > > * The domain name, www.thepiratebay.org, is definitely part of the > affair. > It is ownable and sellable, but not copyable given the current DNS > regime. > The web site that the visitor of the domain is directed to could be > said to > be ownable, in the sense that any new owner can change its contents. > But it > is also copyable, meaning that the ?original? version can pop up > again at > another domain name. Actually, it is very simple to copy. You can > fit all of > The Pirate Bay, including the software and every torrent, on a USB > stick. > * The ads have a value only as long as people visit the web site > (and do not > know how to use Adblock). The blog derives its meaning from the > personal > activity of the three persons involved, and could be hosted anywhere. > * The three persons (Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm > Warg) are > especially interesting, as they can definitely not be copied. But > can they > be owned and sold? Yes, theoretically. In earlier cases of ?P2P sell- > out?, > individuals have signed contracts regulating their future > involvements in > other projects. This is not the case here. The trio is free to do > what they > want, including political activism and even exact copies of The > Pirate Bay. > * The tracker consists of hardware and (open source) software, > possible to > copy but not to uphold without financing. This part will not be part > of the > incorporation. Instead of being sold, the tracker service will be > transferred to a separate entity, that provides the service freely > to any > index wanting to use it, and supposedly does not even have the > information > about files it is tracking. This essentially would mean a small step > towards > decentralisation of the file-sharing infrastructure. It probably also > undermines the whole case the prosecutor made against The Pirate Bay > in > court. Questions about the financing of and control over this new > third > party tracker remains to be answered. However, it should not be > assumed that > control goes to the buyers of ?The Pirate Bay?. > * The swarm of millions of file-sharing humans and machines can not be > owned, nor sold, nor copied. It can, indeed, be fooled. Usually, > that?s what > cases of ?P2P sell-out? aims for, without much success. This time > chances > are even smaller that the swarm would keep using a service if it > began to > filter torrents or demand money for downloads. The Pirate Bay?s > tradition of > strong principles have educated people to be wary even of small > restrictions. If such would occur, the swarm is ready to move on. > However, > nothing at this point (except some vague formulations in a press > release > from the buying company) indicates that there are any such plans. > * The (visual and ideological) symbol ?The Pirate Bay?, finally, is > fundamentally transformed by the act of selling ?The Pirate Bay?. It > does > not really mean that the symbol can be sold. Rather, any attempt by > the > owner of the domain name to change what the symbol stands for, would > mean > that the symbol is dissolving and its associations re-projected at > multiple > other symbols. This could have quite interesting results. Even if > The Pirate > Bay and its associated projects have been able to use the power of one > singular symbol, there has also been an awareness of the problem > with The > Pirate Bay?s oligopolic status. > > File-sharing was never about leaning behind and letting other people > do the > work. The act of selling ?The Pirate Bay? (which really means > selling some > of the components in a larger assemblage) could work as a wake-up > call. > Ideally, the anger of some users will transform into action, so that > more > open bittorrent indexing website, maybe even trackers, will be set > up. That > would mean that The Pirate Bay, finally and paradoxically, reaches > its goal, > which is to be copied. The Pirate Bay never asked to be the sole > representatives of file-sharing. When large parts of the world?s > internet > traffic depends on whether Fredrik is too drunk to fix a server > error, a > radical diversification is needed to maintaing the power of P2P > file-sharing. Dissolving the centered subject, abandoning a > trademark to > multiply what it stands for. That?s the implicit schizo-politics of > The > Pirate Bay?s recent move. > > RASMUS FLEISCHER > (Me = co-founder of Piratbyr?n. Cooperating with, but not involved > in, The > Pirate Bay. No financial connection whatsoever with the current > incorporation plans.) > > > PS. Also read Jonas Andersson?s great analysis: > http://liquidculture.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-pirate-bay-two-important-speculations/ > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090702/bf5eef79/attachment-0001.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Jul 2 23:26:44 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:26:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts Message-ID: <4A4CF4DC.5030004@cis-india.org> This article by Dr. Torrance and Dr. Tomlinson is based on a simulation run by them to test whether patents actually increase innovation. Their conclusion: No, the patent system does not encourage innovation, while openness does. For the whole article: [pdf] (b/w/o Glyn Moody) Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts by Dr. Andrew W. Torrance & Dr. Bill Tomlinson 10 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 130 (2009) (Published May 15, 2009) Abstract Patent systems are often justified by an assumption that innovation will be spurred by the prospect of patent protection, leading to the accrual of greater societal benefits than would be possible under non-patent systems. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this assumption. One way to test the hypothesis that a patent system promotes innovation is to simulate the behavior of inventors and competitors experimentally under conditions approximating patent and non-patent systems. Employing a multi-user interactive simulation of patent and non-patent (commons and open source) systems (PatentSim), this study compares rates of innovation, productivity, and societal utility. PatentSim uses an abstracted and cumulative model of the invention process, a database of potential innovations, an interactive interface that allows users to invent, patent, or open source these innovations, and a network over which users may interact with one another to license, assign, buy, infringe, and enforce patents. Data generated thus far using PatentSim suggest that a system combining patent and open source protection for inventions (that is, similar to modern patent systems) generates significantly lower rates of innovation (p<0.05), productivity (p<0.001), and societal utility (p<0.002) than does a commons system. These data also indicate that there is no statistical difference in innovation, productivity, or societal utility between a pure patent system and a system combining patent and open source protection. The results of this study are inconsistent with the orthodox justification for patent systems. However, they do accord well with evidence from the increasingly important field of user and open innovation. Simulation games of the patent system could even provide a more effective means of fulfilling the Constitutional mandate “to promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts” than does the orthodox assumption that technological innovation can be encouraged through the prospect of patent protection. About the Author Dr. Andrew W. Torrance is an Associate Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law and a Research Associate at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas. Dr. Torrance received his Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School. Dr. Bill Tomlinson is an Assistant Professor in the Informatics Department of the Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Tomlinson received his Ph.D. in media arts and sciences from The Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 260 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090702/aa3c44c4/attachment.bin From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Jul 6 12:16:16 2009 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:16:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India Message-ID: <46E7986D-E4E5-47C5-A9E7-1C4E20B9335D@altlawforum.org> Posted on Kafila.org Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India There are surprisingly few constitutional cases in India which have had the same symbolic power that cases like Roe v. Wade (affirming the right of abortion) or Brown v. Board of Education (dissolving racial segregation in schools) have had in the political history of the United States. For sure, there are a number of important constitutional cases which have contributed significantly to the democratic history of India. Kesavananda Bharati’s espousal of the basic structure doctrine, Maneka Gandhi’s introduction of due process in Art.21, but these cases seem to have an appeal largely within the legal fraternity. They are also cases where the relief sought by the petitioners have had little to do with the final outcome of the case, and it is highly doubtful whether his Holiness Kesavananda Bharati had any investment in the long term impact of the basic structure doctrine (not to mention that Kesavananda Bharati just doesn’t roll of the tongue as easily- in terms of recall value). Is it possible then that Naz Foundation v. Government of Delhi is the first equivalent of a case whose name conjures up the history of particular struggle, celebrates the victory of a particular moment and inaugurates new hopes for the future. Before we argue about why Naz has the potential to become a Roe v. Wade, it would perhaps be useful to establish what Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of education did for the history of struggles for rights in the US. R v. Wade stands as the dividing line between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the US and in the third presidential debate between Obama and McCain, a significant portion of time was spent discussing judicial nominations, particularly to revisit Rv. Wade. Every Republican president since 1980 has asked for an overturning of Roe v. Wade. R v. Wade emerged at a time when many feminists and women’s rights activists were encouraging State legislatures to liberalise their abortion laws. Given the rather haphazard success in the arena of legal reform, another strategy was to shift the battle to the courts and success in cases like R v. Wade made it irrelevant whether or not there was a success in policy reform. There have been a fair number of critics of this strategy too, with people arguing that political reform is generally more desirable and longer lasting than judicial reform. Ruth Ginsberg for instance has argued that Roe v. Wade actually halted a political process that has been moving in a reform direction. So the first characteristic of cases like Wade is the use of the judiciary and innovative interpretations of the Constitution to settle a controversial area and establish rights for unpopular minorities or to establish a ruling against public morality as defined by the majority. But if this were the only criteria then there would be many more cases with the same appeal and power as Wade and Brown. Both Wade and Brown represent moments in the history of struggle that finally culminated in a judicial victory. These victories have been highly significant because they generally exist in the realm of what we could call the radical politics of impossibility. What would have been impossible to imagine is suddenly made possible through an innovation that does not merely change the conditions of the group whose rights and demands are in question, but changes the horizon of possibility for the law and for constitutional interpretation itself. Thus Roe v. Wade did as much for the expansion of the idea of privacy as it did in establishing the right of women to terminate their pregnancy. These cases are also marked by the fact that they often open a Pandora’s box and are in that sense not the culmination of struggle, but the beginning of one. But even these two reasons would not be enough to establish what is special and enduring about Brown and Wade. These are after all matters of public reason, and public reason rarely the accounts for why things have a special place in our hearts. It therefore might be appropriate then to turn to reasons of the heart to see why something becomes a Roe v. Wade. When Obama was a senator, he voted against the confirmation of John Roberts, the current chief justice of the United States, and a well known conservative. In his speech in the Senate, Obama said Justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or a footnote in a casebook. It is about how our laws affect the daily reality of people’s lives – whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. Obama added that while he would agree with 95% of the decisions arrived at by Roberts, ‘ in those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decision about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination or whether the general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right for women to control their reproductive decisions, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. The real success of Wade, Brown and Naz foundation can then be measured not only by their contribution to democratic ethos or the Jurisprudence that they inaugurate but by the tears that they provoke. The spontaneous outburst of emotion on the pronouncement of the Delhi High Court, the tears of joy that people had while listening to the judgment in Court hall No. 1 of the Delhi High court, or from people following it on the news, the telephone calls with people wishing each other happy Independence Day after the judgement – these are the things that legendary cases like Wade and Brown are made of. And these are all the ingredients that seemed to be present in the Naz foundation decision. When was the last time you remember crying about a constitutional decision? Naz foundation decision has also enabled the rekindling of our romance with a text whose recent career has left one a little brokenhearted – the constitution. Justice Pathak in Kesavananda Bharati says that “the constitution is not an arena of quibbling by lawyers with long persons. It is a Heritage or possession and it should be the object of your love”. The Naz foundation judgement once again makes the constitution worthy of our love and affection. It is of course too early to say whether this romance with Naz will stand the test of time, and like all relationships there will be disenchantment, disgruntlement and perhaps even cynicism that will creep in, but for now let us enjoy the slightly trippy lightheadedness that only a new love is capable of providing and toast the much delayed but very welcome arrival of the Roe v. Wade of India. Lawrence Liang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090706/c2ccda9d/attachment.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Jul 6 16:21:57 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:21:57 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?The_real_=E2=80=98party_with_a_difference?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: <20090704110704.GR23524@leitl.org> References: <20090704110704.GR23524@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4785f1e20907060351p7c52c0cbp116dde0fc36c513e@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Via Eugen Leitl comes this excellent article by Pratik Kanjilal. Mr. Kanjilal adroitly draws our attention to the important social function that the various 'Pirate Parties' of Europe perform, which all must acknowledge regardless of their personal views on the merits and demerits of the political arguments put forth by those parties. Mr. Kanjilal also deftly distinguishes between the business models of certain industries and the inherent economics of copyrights and patents, arguing that the two should not be conflated. All in all, it is a succinct reminder that intellectual property laws, policies and business practices that we have today are harmful, and are extremely out of date with the many realities we see before us as well as the original intent of intellectual property. Cheers, Pranesh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eugen Leitl Date: 2009/7/4 http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=5c518589-abf5-4590-9377-dbf35e03becb The real ‘party with a difference’ Pratik Kanjilal, Hindustan Times June 12, 2009 First Published: 20:49 IST(12/6/2009) Last Updated: 20:57 IST(12/6/2009) On Monday, perhaps for the first time since the 18th century, a pirate won public office. Not in Somalia but in Sweden, where the Pirate Party is sending a candidate to the European Parliament backed by 7.1 per cent of the national vote. The party, whose poll plank is opposition to the global intellectual property rights (IPR) regime, has also made inroads in Germany. It gained prominence in April when promoters of the Pirate Bay, the Swedish file-sharing site (no relation to the party) were convicted of abetting illegal downloading of movies and music over the Bittorrent network. Swedish youth reacted by joining the party in droves, propelling it to Parliament. The right to download Matrix Reloaded looks like a futuristic concern in India, where elections are won on promises of the right to food. But IPRs now underlie even traditional pursuits — ask an illiterate GM farmer, who no longer owns the seed he plants while MNCs try to copyright his neem toothbrush. IPRs control ownership of everything from music to food and medicines. Music starvation won’t kill you, but people do die for lack of access to overpriced drugs. The IPR regime, designed to reward creativity, now stifles human growth by reducing public access to its fruits. Iniquitously, it rewards corporates more than creative individuals. Copyright spans have bloated up — write a bestseller today, and your publisher could live off it for three generations. Technology has slashed the cost of production and distribution, but prices remain high. Corporates budget big in order to win big, then manage the heightened risk by seeking safe bets. In music, this spells a Britney Spears blitz which drowns out the promising indie bands reviewed in ‘Download Central’, elsewhere in this newspaper. Business has treated intellectual property as capital, like coal or land, ignoring the social value which marks it apart. But there have been reform movements within business, too. India has seen guerrilla warfare in the pharma sector, with Cipla cloning expensive HIV and influenza drugs for sale in poor Asian and African nations. In the knowledge industry, Wikipedia has established the idea of public ownership of internet content. Linux, the posterboy of the open-source movement, is competing with market leader Windows. It’s rarely seen on the desktop, but the world’s biggest Websites run on it. So does the coveted Android cellphone, and you could find a Linux kernel under the hood of your internet router. So there is change, and it’s coming from unexpected quarters. The entertainment majors which sued the Pirate Bay complain that illegal downloading destroyed their business. They’re wrong. It was destroyed by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc. The core business of a recording company is to sell overpriced albums on CD. When Apple launched the iTunes store to sell single tracks from any label — including independents — for 99 cents a pop, the audio CD became history. Similarly, Internet-delivered movies will undermine traditional film distribution and make cinema more affordable. Groups like the Pirate Party articulate the need for finding a middle ground between corporate traditionalism and changing social needs. The party may not exactly change the world with just one Parliamentary seat, but it has drawn attention to the public belief that the world must change. Pratik Kanjilal is publisher of The Little Magazine -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From rahul_capri at yahoo.com Mon Jul 6 20:50:59 2009 From: rahul_capri at yahoo.com (Rahul Asthana) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] [Reader-list] Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India Message-ID: <993407.82277.qm@web53609.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dear Lawrence, Brilliant Article.Thanks for sharing! Rahul --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Lawrence Liang wrote: > From: Lawrence Liang > Subject: [Reader-list] Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India > To: reader-list at sarai.net > Cc: commons-law at sarai.net > Date: Monday, July 6, 2009, 12:16 PM > > Posted on Kafila.org > > > > Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India > > There are surprisingly few constitutional cases in India > which have  > had the same symbolic power that cases like Roe v. Wade > (affirming the  > right of abortion) or Brown v. Board of Education > (dissolving racial  > segregation in schools) have had in the political history > of the  > United States.  For sure, there are a  number of > important  > constitutional cases which have contributed significantly > to the  > democratic history of India. Kesavananda Bharati’s > espousal of the  > basic structure doctrine, Maneka Gandhi’s introduction of > due process  > in Art.21, but these cases  seem to have an appeal > largely within the  > legal fraternity. They are also cases where the relief > sought by the  > petitioners have had little to do with the final outcome of > the case,  > and it is highly doubtful whether his Holiness Kesavananda > Bharati had  > any investment in the long term impact of the basic > structure doctrine  > (not to mention that Kesavananda Bharati just doesn’t > roll of the  > tongue as easily- in terms of recall value).  Is it > possible then that  > Naz Foundation v. Government of Delhi is the first > equivalent of a  > case whose name conjures up the history of particular > struggle,  > celebrates the victory of a particular moment and > inaugurates new  > hopes for the future. > > > > Before we argue about why Naz has the potential to become a > Roe v.  > Wade, it would perhaps be useful to establish what Roe v. > Wade and  > Brown v. Board of education did for the history of > struggles for  > rights in the US.  R v. Wade stands as the dividing > line between the  > Liberals and the Conservatives in the US and in the third > presidential  > debate between Obama and McCain, a significant portion of > time was  > spent discussing judicial nominations, particularly to > revisit Rv.  > Wade. Every Republican president since 1980 has asked for > an  > overturning of Roe v. Wade. > > > > R v. Wade emerged at a time when many feminists and > women’s rights  > activists were encouraging State legislatures to liberalise > their  > abortion laws. Given the rather haphazard success in the > arena of  > legal reform, another strategy was to shift the battle to > the courts  > and success in cases like R v. Wade made it irrelevant > whether or not  > there was a success in policy reform. There have been a > fair number of  > critics of this strategy too, with people arguing that > political  > reform is generally more desirable and longer lasting than > judicial  > reform. Ruth Ginsberg for instance has argued that Roe v. > Wade  > actually halted a political process that has been moving in > a reform  > direction. > > > > So the first characteristic of cases like Wade is the use > of the  > judiciary and innovative interpretations of the > Constitution to settle  > a controversial area and establish rights for unpopular > minorities or  > to establish a ruling against public morality as defined by > the  > majority. But if this were the only criteria then there > would be many  > more cases with the same appeal and power as Wade and > Brown. > > > > Both Wade and Brown represent moments in the history of > struggle that  > finally culminated in a judicial victory. These victories > have been  > highly significant because they generally exist in the > realm of what  > we could call the radical politics of impossibility. What > would have  > been impossible to imagine is suddenly made possible > through an  > innovation that  does not merely change the conditions > of the group  > whose rights and demands are in question, but  changes > the horizon of  > possibility for the law and for constitutional > interpretation itself. > > > > Thus Roe v. Wade did as much for the expansion of the idea > of privacy  > as it did in establishing the right of women to terminate > their  > pregnancy. These cases are also marked by the fact that > they often  > open a Pandora’s box and are in that sense not the > culmination of  > struggle, but the beginning of one. But even these two > reasons would  > not be enough to establish what is special and enduring > about Brown  > and Wade. These are after all matters of public reason, and > public  > reason rarely the accounts for why things have a special > place in our  > hearts. It therefore might be appropriate then to turn to > reasons of  > the heart to see why something becomes a Roe v. Wade. > > > > When Obama was a senator, he voted against the confirmation > of John  > Roberts, the current chief justice of the United States, > and a well  > known conservative.   In his speech in the > Senate, Obama said Justice  > isn’t about some abstract legal theory or a footnote in a > casebook. It  > is about how our laws affect the daily reality of > people’s lives –  > whether they can make a living and care for their families; > whether  > they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own > nation. Obama  > added that while  he would agree with 95% of the > decisions arrived at  > by Roberts, ‘ in those 5% of hard cases, the > constitutional text will  > not be directly on point. The language of the statute will > not be  > perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a > rule of  > decision. In those circumstances, your decision about > whether  > affirmative action is an appropriate response to the > history of  > discrimination or whether the general right of privacy > encompasses a  > more specific right for women to control their reproductive > decisions,  > the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the > judge’s heart. > > > > The real success of Wade, Brown and Naz foundation can then > be  > measured not only by their contribution to democratic ethos > or the  > Jurisprudence that they inaugurate but by the tears that > they provoke.  > The spontaneous outburst of emotion on the pronouncement of > the Delhi  > High Court, the tears of joy that people had while > listening to the  > judgment in Court hall No. 1 of the Delhi High court, or > from people  > following it on the news, the telephone calls with people > wishing each  > other happy Independence Day after the judgement – these > are the  > things that legendary cases like Wade and Brown are made > of. And these  > are all the ingredients that seemed to be present in the > Naz  > foundation decision. When was the last time you remember > crying about  > a constitutional decision? > > > > Naz foundation decision has also enabled the rekindling of > our romance  > with a text whose recent career has left one a little > brokenhearted –  > the constitution. Justice Pathak in Kesavananda > Bharati  says that  > “the constitution is not an arena of quibbling by lawyers > with long  > persons. It is a Heritage or possession and it should be > the object of  > your love”. > > The Naz foundation judgement once again makes the > constitution worthy  > of our love and affection. It is of course too early to say > whether  > this romance with Naz will stand the test of time,  > and like all  > relationships there will be disenchantment, disgruntlement > and perhaps  > even cynicism that will creep in, but for now let us enjoy > the  > slightly trippy lightheadedness that only a new love is > capable of  > providing and toast the much delayed but very welcome > arrival of the  > Roe v. Wade of India. > > > > > > Lawrence Liang > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the > city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net > with subscribe in the subject header. > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Jul 8 13:18:52 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:18:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Kenyan AIDS Patients Seek To Overturn Anti-Counterfeiting Law As Unconstitutional Message-ID: <4785f1e20907080048j2f10ef1bpd923b9d8c8cac073@mail.gmail.com> A very important, life-saving initiative in Kenya. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Intellectual Property Watch July 07, 2009. Kenyan AIDS Patients Seek To Overturn Anti-Counterfeiting Law As Unconstitutional NAIROBI - Three HIV/AIDS patients in Kenya announced Tuesday they will petition the country's Constitutional Court to declare a new anti-counterfeiting act illegal because it could deny them access to generic medicines. The move, which has the support of public health groups across the country, seeks to have the 2008 Anti-Counterfeiting Act made unconstitutional on the grounds that it could rob them of their right to life. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=5108 -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From Osama at defindia.net Wed Jul 8 11:51:29 2009 From: Osama at defindia.net (Osama at defindia.net) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:51:29 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Manthan Award South Asia 2009 - Nominations Open NOW Message-ID: Dear Sir/Madam, Greetings from Manthan Award South Asia 2009! It’s with immense pleasure we would like to inform you that Manthan Award South Asia 2009 has been launched. Giving you a quick overview about it: The goal of the Manthan Award South Asia is to showcase the content that already exists and thus demonstrate the richness and diversity of content creativity to those interested in understanding and planning the Global Information Society. Manthan award was initiated in 2003 by Digital Empowerment Foundation. In 2008, we received 264 nominations from 30 Indian States and 8 countries in South Asia. We awarded 33 winners from the same. We received both national and International press coverage for the same. Log on to www.manthanaward.org to know more details on the same. The broad categories for sending the nominations for Manthan award are: E-Business, Community Broadcasting, E-Culture & Entertainment , E-Education, E-Enterprise & Livelihood, E- Science & Environment , E-Governance, E-Health, E-Inclusion, E-Learning, E-Localization, E-News & M-Content. The last date for sending the nominations along with the completed form is 31 July 2009. You can also download the form from www.manthanaward.org or alternately write to us and we will courier it to you. Looking forward to a positive and early response from your end. with regards, OSAMA MANZAR Founder and Director of Digital Empowerment Foundation Chairman of Manthan Award, Best E-content for Development The Manthan Award South Asia 2009 Secretariat 44, 3rd Floor, Kalu Sarai, near Narayana IIT Academy, New Delhi - 110 016, INDIA. Tel: +91 11 26532786 Telefax: +91 11 26532787 Email: secretariat at manthanaward.org / manthanaward at defindia.net URL # http://www.manthanaward.org Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090708/10a19226/attachment-0001.html From ravig64 at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 13:16:44 2009 From: ravig64 at gmail.com (Ravi Agarwal) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:16:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Reader-list] Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India In-Reply-To: <46E7986D-E4E5-47C5-A9E7-1C4E20B9335D@altlawforum.org> References: <46E7986D-E4E5-47C5-A9E7-1C4E20B9335D@altlawforum.org> Message-ID: Dear Lawrence, Wonderfully argued! Please also deliberate on Justice Kaul's recent High Court judgment on artistic freedoms. It too has larger issues at stake, and plays out in a very contested current debate. Best ravi On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Lawrence Liang wrote: > > Posted on Kafila.org > > > > Is the Naz decision the Rose v. Wade of India > > There are surprisingly few constitutional cases in India which have > had the same symbolic power that cases like Roe v. Wade (affirming the > right of abortion) or Brown v. Board of Education (dissolving racial > segregation in schools) have had in the political history of the > United States. For sure, there are a number of important > constitutional cases which have contributed significantly to the > democratic history of India. Kesavananda Bharati’s espousal of the > basic structure doctrine, Maneka Gandhi’s introduction of due process > in Art.21, but these cases seem to have an appeal largely within the > legal fraternity. They are also cases where the relief sought by the > petitioners have had little to do with the final outcome of the case, > and it is highly doubtful whether his Holiness Kesavananda Bharati had > any investment in the long term impact of the basic structure doctrine > (not to mention that Kesavananda Bharati just doesn’t roll of the > tongue as easily- in terms of recall value). Is it possible then that > Naz Foundation v. Government of Delhi is the first equivalent of a > case whose name conjures up the history of particular struggle, > celebrates the victory of a particular moment and inaugurates new > hopes for the future. > > > > Before we argue about why Naz has the potential to become a Roe v. > Wade, it would perhaps be useful to establish what Roe v. Wade and > Brown v. Board of education did for the history of struggles for > rights in the US. R v. Wade stands as the dividing line between the > Liberals and the Conservatives in the US and in the third presidential > debate between Obama and McCain, a significant portion of time was > spent discussing judicial nominations, particularly to revisit Rv. > Wade. Every Republican president since 1980 has asked for an > overturning of Roe v. Wade. > > > > R v. Wade emerged at a time when many feminists and women’s rights > activists were encouraging State legislatures to liberalise their > abortion laws. Given the rather haphazard success in the arena of > legal reform, another strategy was to shift the battle to the courts > and success in cases like R v. Wade made it irrelevant whether or not > there was a success in policy reform. There have been a fair number of > critics of this strategy too, with people arguing that political > reform is generally more desirable and longer lasting than judicial > reform. Ruth Ginsberg for instance has argued that Roe v. Wade > actually halted a political process that has been moving in a reform > direction. > > > > So the first characteristic of cases like Wade is the use of the > judiciary and innovative interpretations of the Constitution to settle > a controversial area and establish rights for unpopular minorities or > to establish a ruling against public morality as defined by the > majority. But if this were the only criteria then there would be many > more cases with the same appeal and power as Wade and Brown. > > > > Both Wade and Brown represent moments in the history of struggle that > finally culminated in a judicial victory. These victories have been > highly significant because they generally exist in the realm of what > we could call the radical politics of impossibility. What would have > been impossible to imagine is suddenly made possible through an > innovation that does not merely change the conditions of the group > whose rights and demands are in question, but changes the horizon of > possibility for the law and for constitutional interpretation itself. > > > > Thus Roe v. Wade did as much for the expansion of the idea of privacy > as it did in establishing the right of women to terminate their > pregnancy. These cases are also marked by the fact that they often > open a Pandora’s box and are in that sense not the culmination of > struggle, but the beginning of one. But even these two reasons would > not be enough to establish what is special and enduring about Brown > and Wade. These are after all matters of public reason, and public > reason rarely the accounts for why things have a special place in our > hearts. It therefore might be appropriate then to turn to reasons of > the heart to see why something becomes a Roe v. Wade. > > > > When Obama was a senator, he voted against the confirmation of John > Roberts, the current chief justice of the United States, and a well > known conservative. In his speech in the Senate, Obama said Justice > isn’t about some abstract legal theory or a footnote in a casebook. It > is about how our laws affect the daily reality of people’s lives – > whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether > they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. Obama > added that while he would agree with 95% of the decisions arrived at > by Roberts, ‘ in those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will > not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be > perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of > decision. In those circumstances, your decision about whether > affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of > discrimination or whether the general right of privacy encompasses a > more specific right for women to control their reproductive decisions, > the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. > > > > The real success of Wade, Brown and Naz foundation can then be > measured not only by their contribution to democratic ethos or the > Jurisprudence that they inaugurate but by the tears that they provoke. > The spontaneous outburst of emotion on the pronouncement of the Delhi > High Court, the tears of joy that people had while listening to the > judgment in Court hall No. 1 of the Delhi High court, or from people > following it on the news, the telephone calls with people wishing each > other happy Independence Day after the judgement – these are the > things that legendary cases like Wade and Brown are made of. And these > are all the ingredients that seemed to be present in the Naz > foundation decision. When was the last time you remember crying about > a constitutional decision? > > > > Naz foundation decision has also enabled the rekindling of our romance > with a text whose recent career has left one a little brokenhearted – > the constitution. Justice Pathak in Kesavananda Bharati says that > “the constitution is not an arena of quibbling by lawyers with long > persons. It is a Heritage or possession and it should be the object of > your love”. > > The Naz foundation judgement once again makes the constitution worthy > of our love and affection. It is of course too early to say whether > this romance with Naz will stand the test of time, and like all > relationships there will be disenchantment, disgruntlement and perhaps > even cynicism that will creep in, but for now let us enjoy the > slightly trippy lightheadedness that only a new love is capable of > providing and toast the much delayed but very welcome arrival of the > Roe v. Wade of India. > > > > > > Lawrence Liang > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with > subscribe in the subject header. > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090708/c640ef49/attachment-0001.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Jul 9 13:22:53 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:22:53 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] EU launches antitrust case: pharma cos. abusing patents, anti-competitive Message-ID: <4A55A1D5.8080904@cis-india.org> Very exciting news from the European Commission. From Kaitlin Mara of IP-Watch: Pharmaceutical companies are manipulating the intellectual property rights system and are “actively trying to delay the entry of generic medicines onto their markets,” a top EU official said of an EU inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector released Wednesday. As a result, there has been a decline in the number of innovative medicines getting to the market, it says. Quotations from originator companies themselves illustrate the behaviour, according to a [fact sheet][1] [pdf] on the findings. ”We identify options to obtain or acquire patents for the sole purpose of limiting the freedom of operation of our competitors… rights covering competitive alternatives are maintained in major markets until risk of competing products appearing is minimal,” said one such quotation. The final report of the inquiry will be [posted here][2] when it becomes available. An executive summary of the findings is available [here][3] [pdf]. In an immediate action related to the findings, European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes [announced][4] that the first antitrust case resulting from the inquiry is now open. It alleges breaches of European rules on “restrictive business practices” and “abuse of a dominant market position,” and is against French company Les Laboratoires Servier and five generics with which it had made deals, according to a separate press release. Kroes was speaking at a press conference on 8 July. “The sector is too important to the health and finances of Europe’s citizens and governments to accept anything less than the best. The inquiry has told us what is wrong with the sector, and now it is time to act,” she added in the press release. The sector-wide inquiry was opened because the Commission suspected the slowdown in novel medicines entering the market - 27 annually since 2000 as compared to 40 annually between 1995 and 1999, [a press release said][5] - was a systemic problem, and they sought to find out what was causing it. The European Generic Medicines Association (EGA) in a release emphasised the Commission’s finding showing “that originator companies use a variety of instruments to extend the commercial life of their products without generic entry for as long as possible.” The EGA called for quick implementation of the recommendations. The organisation had itself made several, including more stringent patentability requirements (especially on inventive step), timelines for oppositions and litigation procedures, controls for medical advertisement, sanctions of misbehaviour, as well as community patents and a unified EU patent court. Pharma Companies React The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) “acknowledged” the report, which it felt was toned down from what it called “the emotive language of the interim report.” This is because, the group’s [press release][6] says, there are more regulatory issues identified in this version. The preliminary version released in late November sparked charges from the pharmaceutical industry ([*IPW*, Public Health, 5 December 2008][7]) that the numbers were “misleading,” and that the problem instead lay with problems in regulation. Intensive industry lobbying of EU officials followed in recent months, according to sources. The final report says it should be viewed in the context of Commission regulatory activities on drug safety, transparency of pricing schemes, and protection of IP. However, it also says competition law enforcement “by itself will be an important component” for ameliorating current concerns, and the majority of the executive summary is dedicated to providing detail on company practices. The EFPIA also said the final report “failed to substantiate the initial allegation that patenting strategies dampened innovation or delayed generic entry illegitimately,” and praised it for “recognis[ing] the importance of Europe’s innovative pharmaceutical sector” and the importance of IP to that sector. EU Findings on Company Behaviour The European Commission found that companies engaged in delaying strategies such as loading up a single medicine with up to 1,300 patents or engaging in litigation. These are won by generics about two-thirds of the time, the Commission said, but can last up to three years. Meddling with regulators was also an issue, as the [Commission found][5] “originator companies intervened in national procedures for the approval of generic medicines in a significant number of cases, which on average led to four months of delay for the generic medicine.” Companies would release claims about the generic product’s safety and quality, the inquiry found. The Commission also found “at least 200 settlement agreements between generic and originator companies,” many of which restrict generics, driving up prices for consumers, Kroes [said at a press conference][4] on 8 July. Community Patent, Unified Litigation System “Needed Rapidly” The “current lack of progress” on a community patent is “very damaging,” said Kroes. Further, nearly a third of national court cases on patents are happening in parallel in other jurisdictions, and in 11 percent of cases they “reach conflicting conclusions.” “This is a waste of everyone’s time and money,” said Kroes. All stakeholders, including originator companies also supported the idea of a community patent and a unified litigations system, the report says. In case there were doubts, the Commission reports that it “will not be changing its tough approach to antitrust enforcement as a result of the [financial] crisis.” [1]: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/fact_sheet_3.pdf [2]: The results of the inquiry are available here http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/index.html [3]: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/communication_en.pdf [4]: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/333&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en [5]: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/321&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en [6]: http://www.efpia.eu/Content/Default.asp?PageID=559&DocID=7246 [7]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/12/05/debate-over-eu-finding-that-pharmaceutical-firms-abusing-patent-system/ -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 260 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090709/d439280d/attachment.bin From nicheant at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 16:29:24 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:29:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy In-Reply-To: <4439ee330907100356k74e4c057y17416115f3825482@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A571333.9040307@ekgaon.com> <4439ee330907100351j235ce165ta01fed0425027170@mail.gmail.com> <4439ee330907100356k74e4c057y17416115f3825482@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4439ee330907100359n30a6d76epb9f62347c64bbb04@mail.gmail.com> Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy By    siliconindia news bureau Thursday,09 July 2009, 16:53 hrs Link: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Tiffs_within_IT_sector_over_govts_open_source_policy-nid-59060.html NEW DELHI: IT industry is having a difference in opinion over government's draft policy on open source standards for awarding e-governance projects. The policy aims to adopt a single and royalty-free standard for awarding $9 billion e-governance projects, including the national ID project, reports the Economic Times. While IT majors like Red Hat and Sun Microsystems are praising it, industry associations like Nasscom, MAIT and Microsoft are opposing the policy as it may hurt business interests of some companies. The draft policy will guide the multi-billion dollar procurement of IT software and hardware across departments to ensure interoperability among disparate IT systems. The policy will ensure that India does not suffer a technology denial or lock-in of data (like electoral rolls or citizen data), in case of sanctions on India, like in case of a nuclear test. Supporting multiple technical standards is a very complex task, according to the policy. It says, "Adopting a quadratic number of en-converters /de-converters - one for every pair of available standards, is a very naive approach. All this will lead to unstable and unreliable systems, defeating the purpose of standardization for e-governance." It adds,"The way out is a single internal standard to which other choices (of software and hardware) can be bi-directionally converted and/or interfaced. Judicious choice of this particular standard is very critical." For large projects like the Unique ID project, adopting a proper standard is very crucial, which is estimated to be over Rs. 20,000 crore, as they may involve interfacing with many ministries. Data like electoral rolls, birth date, age, address will also need to be maintained over scores of years, without the fear of locking. Narayan Murthy, Chairman, Infosys had earlier supported multiple standards for the IT industry. The company is currently in a silent period due to the upcoming quarterly results. Industry body, Nasscom is fiercely opposing the idea of a single and royalty-free standard. "Ways can be worked out commercially to make a large e-governance project viable. Making everything patent-free may not be a commercial proposition as there might not be good standards available. On the other hand, adopting a single standard may constrict the country to adopt an old standard, if a new and better standard emerges in future. We support multiple standards which ensure interoperability at zero cost," said Rajdeep Sehrawat, Vice President, Nasscom. Microsoft opines to stand by multiple standards. From nicheant at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 16:21:56 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:21:56 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy In-Reply-To: <4A571333.9040307@ekgaon.com> References: <4A571333.9040307@ekgaon.com> Message-ID: <4439ee330907100351j235ce165ta01fed0425027170@mail.gmail.com> Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy By siliconindia news bureau Thursday,09 July 2009, 16:53 hrs Link: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Tiffs_within_IT_sector_over_govts_open_source_policy-nid-59060.html NEW DELHI: IT industry is having a difference in opinion over government's draft policy on open source standards for awarding e-governance projects. The policy aims to adopt a single and royalty-free standard for awarding $9 billion e-governance projects, including the national ID project, reports the Economic Times. While IT majors like Red Hat and Sun Microsystems are praising it, industry associations like Nasscom, MAIT and Microsoft are opposing the policy as it may hurt business interests of some companies. The draft policy will guide the multi-billion dollar procurement of IT software and hardware across departments to ensure interoperability among disparate IT systems. The policy will ensure that India does not suffer a technology denial or lock-in of data (like electoral rolls or citizen data), in case of sanctions on India, like in case of a nuclear test. Supporting multiple technical standards is a very complex task, according to the policy. It says, "Adopting a quadratic number of en-converters /de-converters - one for every pair of available standards, is a very naive approach. All this will lead to unstable and unreliable systems, defeating the purpose of standardization for e-governance." It adds,"The way out is a single internal standard to which other choices (of software and hardware) can be bi-directionally converted and/or interfaced. Judicious choice of this particular standard is very critical." For large projects like the Unique ID project, adopting a proper standard is very crucial, which is estimated to be over Rs. 20,000 crore, as they may involve interfacing with many ministries. Data like electoral rolls, birth date, age, address will also need to be maintained over scores of years, without the fear of locking. Narayan Murthy, Chairman, Infosys had earlier supported multiple standards for the IT industry. The company is currently in a silent period due to the upcoming quarterly results. Industry body, Nasscom is fiercely opposing the idea of a single and royalty-free standard. "Ways can be worked out commercially to make a large e-governance project viable. Making everything patent-free may not be a commercial proposition as there might not be good standards available. On the other hand, adopting a single standard may constrict the country to adopt an old standard, if a new and better standard emerges in future. We support multiple standards which ensure interoperability at zero cost," said Rajdeep Sehrawat, Vice President, Nasscom. Microsoft opines to stand by multiple standards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090710/e1b9b732/attachment.html From nicheant at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 16:26:21 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:26:21 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy In-Reply-To: <4439ee330907100351j235ce165ta01fed0425027170@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A571333.9040307@ekgaon.com> <4439ee330907100351j235ce165ta01fed0425027170@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4439ee330907100356k74e4c057y17416115f3825482@mail.gmail.com> Tiffs within IT sector over govt.'s open source policy By    siliconindia news bureau Thursday,09 July 2009, 16:53 hrs Link: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Tiffs_within_IT_sector_over_govts_open_source_policy-nid-59060.html NEW DELHI: IT industry is having a difference in opinion over government's draft policy on open source standards for awarding e-governance projects. The policy aims to adopt a single and royalty-free standard for awarding $9 billion e-governance projects, including the national ID project, reports the Economic Times. While IT majors like Red Hat and Sun Microsystems are praising it, industry associations like Nasscom, MAIT and Microsoft are opposing the policy as it may hurt business interests of some companies. The draft policy will guide the multi-billion dollar procurement of IT software and hardware across departments to ensure interoperability among disparate IT systems. The policy will ensure that India does not suffer a technology denial or lock-in of data (like electoral rolls or citizen data), in case of sanctions on India, like in case of a nuclear test. Supporting multiple technical standards is a very complex task, according to the policy. It says, "Adopting a quadratic number of en-converters /de-converters - one for every pair of available standards, is a very naive approach. All this will lead to unstable and unreliable systems, defeating the purpose of standardization for e-governance." It adds,"The way out is a single internal standard to which other choices (of software and hardware) can be bi-directionally converted and/or interfaced. Judicious choice of this particular standard is very critical." For large projects like the Unique ID project, adopting a proper standard is very crucial, which is estimated to be over Rs. 20,000 crore, as they may involve interfacing with many ministries. Data like electoral rolls, birth date, age, address will also need to be maintained over scores of years, without the fear of locking. Narayan Murthy, Chairman, Infosys had earlier supported multiple standards for the IT industry. The company is currently in a silent period due to the upcoming quarterly results. Industry body, Nasscom is fiercely opposing the idea of a single and royalty-free standard. "Ways can be worked out commercially to make a large e-governance project viable. Making everything patent-free may not be a commercial proposition as there might not be good standards available. On the other hand, adopting a single standard may constrict the country to adopt an old standard, if a new and better standard emerges in future. We support multiple standards which ensure interoperability at zero cost," said Rajdeep Sehrawat, Vice President, Nasscom. Microsoft opines to stand by multiple standards. From siddharth.narrain at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 20:15:13 2009 From: siddharth.narrain at gmail.com (siddharth narrain) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:15:13 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] URGENT: Please endorse letter urging govt to support High Court order on S.377 [1 Attachment] In-Reply-To: <4def3c470907140733q45ceeb1i9442719f2c2d2c12@mail.gmail.com> References: <26b243530907140618x3755dba4wa5a3bb625dea935b@mail.gmail.com> <2617ab630907140707h411200c0h85fd2852aa64d2bb@mail.gmail.com> <4def3c470907140733q45ceeb1i9442719f2c2d2c12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1773a06d0907140745k7997eeaco541e23e18e48ece3@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mayur Date: Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM Subject: [goodasyoublr] Fwd: URGENT: Please endorse letter urging govt to support High Court order on S.377 [1 Attachment] To: goodasyoublr , gaybangalore < gaybangalore at yahoogroups.com> [Attachment(s) <#12279afc815472ae_TopText> from Mayur included below] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: deepti Date: Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM Subject: URGENT: Please endorse letter urging govt to support High Court order on S.377 To: delhi-queer-pride pls endorse this letter. Organisations - please write with the organisation's name, place, contact person's name, and email address (only for our records) to Chaitali Bhatia at cbhatia at creaworld.org Individuals - please write with your name, profession/occupation/title, place, and email address (only for our records) to Chaitali Bhatia at cbhatia at creaworld.org *Please forward to others as appropriate* Dear friend, colleague and comrade, We write to you as a *coalition* of groups and activists working on women's rights, child rights, right to health, human rights, sexual rights and rights of LGBT persons. We seek to draw attention to to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – the law that penalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and effectively criminalizes same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults, and even certain sexual practices among heterosexual consenting adults, in private. It is a law that has given legitimacy to gross and sustained human rights violations against lesbian, gay, hijra, kothi, transgender and bisexual people. We *welcome the July 2nd Delhi High Court judgement*, which declared that S.377 IPC, in criminalising consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violates the rights to equality, non-discrimination, life, liberty, privacy and dignity as guaranteed in Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The judgement excluded adult consensual sexual acts in private from the purview of S.377. This rights-affirming Delhi High Court judgement has been *challenged in the Supreme Court* by an astrologer, Mr. Kaushal. The Supreme Court has asked the Government to submit its response on the matter by July 20th. We are meeting with the government to urge them to support the Delhi High Court judgement in their response to th Supreme Court or at least not support Mr. Kaushal's demand for an interim stay of the judgement, which would return S.377 to its pre-judgement position. We are writing to ask you to endorse the attached letter that we will be submitting to the government when we meet with them - the salient points of the letter have been shared with you above. We are currently setting up appointments with Union Ministers for this week (15 to 17th) so request you to *send in your endorsements as soon as you read this*. Thanks :) Organisations - please write with the organisation's name, place, contact person's name, and email address (only for our records) to Chaitali Bhatia at cbhatia at creaworld.org Individuals - please write with your name, profession/occupation/title, place, and email address (only for our records) to Chaitali Bhatia at cbhatia at creaworld.org In solidarity, CREA, Nigah, Nirantar, PLD, Prism, Sama, Saheli, TARSHI, and many others... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Delhi Queer Pride" group. To post to this group, send email to delhi-queer-pride at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to delhi-queer-pride+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/delhi-queer-pride?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- __._,_.___ Attachment(s) from Mayur 1 of 1 File(s) Letter to the Govt.pdf Messages in this topic ( 1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages| Photos| Links| Database| Members| Calendar MARKETPLACE Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other [image: Yahoo! Groups] Change settings via the Web(Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest| Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity Visit Your Group Y! Messenger PC-to-PC calls Call your friends worldwide - free! Everyday Wellness on Yahoo! Groups Find groups that will help you stay fit. Y! Groups blog The place to go to stay informed on Groups news! . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090714/b17f7080/attachment-0001.html From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 15 14:11:17 2009 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: more IP madness ... Message-ID: <55630.94.212.51.22.1247647277.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Bwo Bricolab List/ Rob van Kranenburg Hi, >From Edward on Underground: Source: http://mises.org/story/3298 See also: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm A Book that Changes Everything Mises Daily by Jeffrey A. Tucker | Posted on 1/16/2009 12:00:00 AM At a taped video interview in my office, before the crew would start the camera, a man had to remove my Picasso prints from the wall. The prints are probably under copyright, they said. But the guy who drew them died 30 years ago. Besides, they are mine. Doesn't matter. They have to go. What about the poor fellow who painted the wall behind the prints? Why doesn't he have a copyright? If I scrape off the paint, there is the drywall and its creator. Behind the drywall are the boards, which are surely proprietary too. To avoid the "intellectual-property" thicket, maybe we have to sit in an open field; but there is the problem of the guy who last mowed the grass. Then there is the inventor of the grass to consider. Is there something wrong with this picture? ----- :) Greetings, Rob _______________________________________________ read our blogs http://planet.bricolabs.net write our wiki http://wiki.bricolabs.net From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 18:35:11 2009 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:35:11 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: more IP madness ... In-Reply-To: <55630.94.212.51.22.1247647277.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> References: <55630.94.212.51.22.1247647277.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4785f1e20907150605p5189b221vc3ffc817ed52a94f@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Patrice, for that mail. I also think it is insane that newspapers, acting as chroniclers, are provided fair dealings exceptions, whilst encyclopaedias, acting as chroniclers, aren't. The only difference being that one records what happened yesterday ("current events") whilst the other (traditionally) records what happened in the years past. This leads us to situations where one has to describe the legacy of a musician without any music, and the legacy of a photographer without any photographs. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 14:11, Patrice Riemens wrote: > Bwo Bricolab List/ Rob van Kranenburg > > > Hi, > > From Edward on Underground: > > Source: http://mises.org/story/3298 > See also: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm > > A Book that Changes Everything > > Mises Daily by Jeffrey A. Tucker | Posted on 1/16/2009 12:00:00 AM > > At a taped video interview in my office, before the crew would start the > camera, a man had to remove my Picasso prints from the wall. The prints > are probably under copyright, they said. > > But the guy who drew them died 30 years ago. Besides, they are mine. > > Doesn't matter. They have to go. > > What about the poor fellow who painted the wall behind the prints? Why > doesn't he have a copyright? If I scrape off the paint, there is the > drywall and its creator. Behind the drywall are the boards, which are > surely proprietary too. To avoid the "intellectual-property" thicket, > maybe we have to sit in an open field; but there is the problem of the > guy who last mowed the grass. Then there is the inventor of the grass to > consider. > > Is there something wrong with this picture? > ----- > > :) > > Greetings, Rob > > _______________________________________________ > read our blogs http://planet.bricolabs.net > write our wiki http://wiki.bricolabs.net > > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From nicheant at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 23:18:19 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:18:19 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?Guns_N=E2=80=99_Roses_Uploader_Gets_House?= =?utf-8?q?_Arrest=2C_Will_Make_Anti-Piracy_Ad?= Message-ID: <4439ee330907151048h323faf8draffb79dcce53fd2e@mail.gmail.com> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/guns-n-roses-uploader-gets-home-sentence-agrees-to-produce-riaa-anti-piracy-message/ Guns N’ Roses Uploader Gets House Arrest, Will Make Anti-Piracy Ad A Los Angeles man who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of uploading pre-release Guns N’ Roses tracks was handed one year probation and two months’ home confinement Tuesday after agreeing to cooperate with the Recording Industry Association of America to produce an anti-piracy message. Kevin Cogill was arrested last summer at gunpoint and charged with uploading nine tracks of the Chinese Democracy album to his music site — antiquiet.com. The album, which cost millions and took 17 years to complete, was released in November and reached No. 3 in the charts. Cogill faced a maximum of a year in prison. The authorities, however, originally were demanding six months, claiming the amount of infringement equaled $371,000. The higher the number, the longer the potential prison term. According to court documents, after Cogill agreed to help produce an anti-piracy public service address with the RIAA, the government withdrew the $371,000 figure and agreed not to fine him. Los Angeles federal authorities in March said the figure was a “reasonable estimate” that gave the defendant the “benefit of the doubt.” The calculations, the government said, were based on each downloaded Guns N’ Roses track being worth 99 cents on iTunes. As part of the 28-year-old Cogill’s guilty plea in December, he informed the authorities that he received the music online and unsolicited — a confession prosecutors said might pave the way for more “targets” to be prosecuted. Cogill uploaded nine songs from the 14-track album on June 18, 2008. Court records show he confessed to the FBI. The case was cracked by an investigator with the RIAA. In March, the RIAA said it believed the infringement amounted to $2.2 million. (.pdf) The record labels said it would accept $30,000, instead of $2.2 million, if Cogill “was willing to participate in a public service announcement designed to educate the public that music piracy is illegal.” Prosecutor Kevin Missakian said in a telephone interview that the public address will either be a radio or television message of “Kevin talking about the importance of protecting copyright holders’ rights in their songs and movies.” Missakian added that the government was “satisfied” with the sentence, but “the government had asked for some jail time in hopes of sending a stronger message.” From anilgb1 at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 19:45:52 2009 From: anilgb1 at gmail.com (anil gupta) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:45:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: more IP madness ... In-Reply-To: <4785f1e20907150605p5189b221vc3ffc817ed52a94f@mail.gmail.com> References: <55630.94.212.51.22.1247647277.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <4785f1e20907150605p5189b221vc3ffc817ed52a94f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: it is excellent statement about the asymmetry between the rights of people from formal and informal sector: people take photos of any body and every body in villages without even an iota of prior informed consent but behave in thsi manner for the recognized and the rewarded ones. it is not just the issue of lawn mover but the consideration he might have had in cutting the shrubs in different shapes and angles to author his /her creations all around; all the best a; On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Thanks, Patrice, for that mail. I also think it is insane that > newspapers, acting as chroniclers, are provided fair dealings > exceptions, whilst encyclopaedias, acting as chroniclers, aren't. The > only difference being that one records what happened yesterday > ("current events") whilst the other (traditionally) records what > happened in the years past. This leads us to situations where one has > to describe the legacy of a musician without any music, and the legacy > of a photographer without any photographs. > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 14:11, Patrice Riemens wrote: > > Bwo Bricolab List/ Rob van Kranenburg > > > > > > Hi, > > > > From Edward on Underground: > > > > Source: http://mises.org/story/3298 > > See also: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm > > > > A Book that Changes Everything > > > > Mises Daily by Jeffrey A. Tucker | Posted on 1/16/2009 12:00:00 AM > > > > At a taped video interview in my office, before the crew would start the > > camera, a man had to remove my Picasso prints from the wall. The prints > > are probably under copyright, they said. > > > > But the guy who drew them died 30 years ago. Besides, they are mine. > > > > Doesn't matter. They have to go. > > > > What about the poor fellow who painted the wall behind the prints? Why > > doesn't he have a copyright? If I scrape off the paint, there is the > > drywall and its creator. Behind the drywall are the boards, which are > > surely proprietary too. To avoid the "intellectual-property" thicket, > > maybe we have to sit in an open field; but there is the problem of the > > guy who last mowed the grass. Then there is the inventor of the grass to > > consider. > > > > Is there something wrong with this picture? > > ----- > > > > :) > > > > Greetings, Rob > > > > _______________________________________________ > > read our blogs http://planet.bricolabs.net > > write our wiki http://wiki.bricolabs.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > commons-law mailing list > > commons-law at sarai.net > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -- anil k gupta iim ahmedabad and honey bee network ahmedabad 380015 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090715/02dac6cf/attachment.html From lawrence at altlawforum.org Tue Jul 21 00:02:41 2009 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:02:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Supreme Court hearing 20.07.2009 on Sec 377 References: <52cddec0907200652m48ff2a95s16b56e4c23e25d7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2EC31552-6322-45CF-ADAB-34015E572E67@altlawforum.org> > > > > > > --------- > > Dear All,Please find below a brief synopsis of today's proceedings > in the Supreme Court. We have also come to know that the Apostolic > Churches Alliance had mentioned the matter today, without notice to > us. We were told that the Chief Justice refused to grant early > hearing of this matter, or that it be tagged along with Suresh > Koushal's matter today, and that it would come up in its turn. Will > get the full orders as soon as it's released. I think Voices' > lobbying with the Government worked to give us a two month breather. > So congratulations! > Love > > Mayur > > > > The hearing on the SLP against Delhi HC's judgment (Suresh Kumar > Kaushal v. Naz Foundation SLP(C) No. 15436/2009) was heard by a > bench comprising of the Chief Justice and Justice Sathasivam. > > Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati started off by saying that the > Government took a particular stand before the High Court, but in > light of the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Government was > reevaluating its stand, and that it needed more time to said the > Government has a definite stand. He said that section 377 remains on > the statute books and only a small portion of it has been taken out > of the ambit of the law. (In my reading indicating that child abuse > and non-consensual sex remained crimes.) He said that the section > has been declared unconstitutional only insofar as it applies to > consensual sexual acts between adults, and that the Government > requires more time to arrive at a conclusion at this regard. He then > particularly stated that the Government does not support the plea of > interim stay of the judgment. > > The Petitioner's counsel drew attention to the submission that the > provision was not being utilised against consenting adults. But the > impact of the Delhi High Court's judgment, he suggested, is such > that consenting adult sex between two males is legalised, whereas > commercial sex between male and female continues to be illegal. The > Counsel for the petitioner further argued that as a result gay > marriages were taking place throughout the country. > > The Attorney General then interjected by stating that the judgment > does do nothing to change or alter marriage laws and that marriage > laws still continue to use bride and groom meaning that they are > only between a man and a woman. > > Anand Grover then questioned the locus of the petitioner to bring > this petition. He said that he was neither a party at the High > Court, nor has he made any pleadings as to the nature of his right > that is affected by the ruling of the Delhi High Court. The Chief > Justice however, said in a public interest matter, there is no > question of there being no locus. > > Counel for the Petitioner then interjected that homosexuals are 8 > times more likely to have, and therefore spread HIV/AIDS to the > general population. Anand Grover then interjected that it is because > of section 377 that homosexuals are more prone to HIV/AIDS. Anil > Divan, Counsel for Voices Against 377 then stated that NACO had > reached a similar conclusion. > > Counsel for BP Singhal stated that the UK House of Lords in the > decision of R v. Brown stated that consensual homosexuality remained > a crime, and was a dangerous practice, and that consent does not > necesarily mean that no crime was committed. He stated that this > judgment would mean that consensual adultery, consensual gambling > would all be allowed. Anil Divan, on behalf of the NGO, Voices, > argued that the HC judgment is in line with the UN Resolutions, and > WHO guidelines. Secondly, he said many countries including Fiji, > South Africa, Canada, whole of Europe, South Africa ,Hong Kong have > decriminalised the same sex conduct. > > CJI at this point intervened to say that our civilization is > different from European civilization. Anil Divan replied saying that > our culture also includes Khajuraho, and Kamasutra. > > The Counsel for BP Singhal then referred to Mahatma Gandhi's > criticism of gay sex behaviour. As editor of the journal Young > India, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in 1929 about the 'unnatural vice' in > boys' school. > > The Petitioner's then argued that the law has been in place for more > than 150 years and that the world would not turn upside down if the > judgment was stayed while the government formulated its stand. He > argued that there had been no conviction under S.377 and that the > law was being used only against pedophiles, and therefore, a stay on > HC judgment would not make any difference. > > He then argued that if the Chief justice was not granting a stay > then, that the Chief Justice should also issue a stay on the > registration of all gay marriages. The CJI said such marriages are > prohibited under the Personal Laws, and the judgment did not > legalise gay marriages. When the Petitioner's counsel argued that 70 > per cent of population lives in villages, and people mostly don't > understand that the HC order legalised sexual conduct, and not > marriages between two consenting same sex adults, the CJI said that > cannot be a ground for the stay. > > > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | > Calendar > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > RECENT ACTIVITY > Visit Your Group > Give Back > Yahoo! for Good > > Get inspired > > by a good cause. > > Y! Toolbar > Get it Free! > > easy 1-click access > > to your groups. > > Yahoo! Groups > Start a group > > in 3 easy steps. > > Connect with others. > > . > > __,_._,___ > > > > -- > Alternative Law Forum > 122/4 Infantry Road > Opposite Infantry Wedding House > Bangalore 560001 > Phone 22868757/22865757 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090721/1f8a389f/attachment-0001.html From chansoobak at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 02:07:51 2009 From: chansoobak at gmail.com (Chan Park) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:07:51 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Times of India: IPR should not come in the way of tech transfer, PM tells Clinton Message-ID: <9A754876-D9E3-4BA4-A6C6-0DAE7A33919D@gmail.com> NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday told visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that US and other developed countries should not let intellectual property rights come in the way of transfer of technology that developing countries needed to fight the challenges of climate change and arranging food security for their populations. Singh also took up with Clinton the concern of Indian business over growing protectionism in the US. The visiting US dignitary also called on Congress chief Sonia Gandhi in the evening. The meeting at 10, Janpath was attended by Rahul Gandhi and senior AICC leader Karan Singh. On the IPR issue, Singh was taking off from where he left at the recent G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. The G-8 deliberations had seen him forcefully taking up the issue with US President Barack Obama and other leaders of rich countries. "There could be no compromise on this," Singh had told his interlocutors in Italy, winning admiration from leaders of developing countries like Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. Singh's advocacy for technology transfer is central to India's stand that the US and other industrialised countries should help India and other developing countries with both technology and funds for emission reduction and adaptation. On the fear in India about return of protectionism, Clinton insisted that the US had not taken a turn away from free trade. "There should be no scope for alarm," she sought to assure the PM. Singh has, starting with the G-20 summit on financial crisis early this year, raised the threat of governments taking recourse to protectionism in the wake of the global economic crisis. He has said that erecting barriers to free trade would only delay a recovery, while causing distress to recession-racked economies of developing countries. The interaction, which was followed by lunch, was shaped by Singh's estimate of Clinton as one of the drivers for the remarkable upswing in bilateral ties. Clinton was chairman of the India Caucus — a group of US lawmakers who worked to help the two countries overcome the trust deficit. She also broke away from Democrats' traditional concerns about non-proliferation to back the nuclear deal between the two countries. The PMO sees her as uniquely placed to take the process forward as a high-profile secretary of state. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090722/ad1565f5/attachment.html From nicheant at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 14:16:15 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:16:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Understanding Microsoft's Linux code shocker Message-ID: <4439ee330907220146j3300b7b3pc1dc9b9921691312@mail.gmail.com> Understanding Microsoft's Linux code shocker by Ina Fried Microsoft dropped a mini-bombshell on Monday, announcing that it is contributing thousands of lines of code for inclusion in Linux. But lest anyone think Microsoft suffered a massive head trauma over the weekend, the code it is releasing isn't really about helping Linux compete better with Microsoft. The drivers are really geared at making Windows a better host for Linux. "The Linux device drivers we are releasing are designed so Linux can run in enlightened mode, giving it the same optimized synthetic devices as a Windows virtual machine running on top of Hyper-V," Tom Hanrahan, director of Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center, said in a statement. "Without this driver code, Linux can run on top of Windows, but without the same high performance levels." As noted by CNET Blog Network writer Matt Asay, Microsoft is releasing three drivers for Linux under the GPL that governs Linux. Although Microsoft has released open-source code in the past, the company has generally favored licenses other than the GPL. That said, the GPL is the way into the Linux kernel and Microsoft wants this code in Linux. In an article on its press Web site, Microsoft acknowledged the departure. The company has also been going after Linux for years, both on the marketing and legal fronts. "Today, in a break from the ordinary, Microsoft released 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community," Microsoft said. "The code, which includes three Linux device drivers, has been submitted to the Linux kernel community for inclusion in the Linux tree." The move comes at a time of mixed signals from Redmond when it comes to Linux. Microsoft has said that the browser-based versions of Office, which are due out next year as part of Office 2010, will support Firefox, bringing at least a portion of Office to Linux for the first time. It has also made peace with a number of Linux companies, most notably a 2006 pact with Novell, but has continued to rattle its legal saber at those with whom it has not struck patent deals. After years of making claims that many Linux implementations violate Microsoft patents, Microsoft finally took a case to court in February, filing suit against navigation systems maker TomTom. The two sides later settled, but the settlement left many unanswered questions and Microsoft hasn't said if it will take similar action against other companies. Although the latest move is clearly designed to bolster Windows as a hosting environment for servers running both Linux and Windows, to me there is something slightly discordant about adding code to something you feel is already infringing on your intellectual property. Perhaps, though, that's just the very definition of co-opetition. Microsoft is in an interesting position--seeking to compete with Linux while also understanding that many companies run both operating systems. Not only is it about making its business customers happy, but there is good money to be made by owning the management and virtualization layers, even if there is some Linux running atop Microsoft's stack. From philippe.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 19:07:52 2009 From: philippe.mailinglist at gmail.com (Philippe Mailinglist) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:37:52 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] Understanding Microsoft's Linux code shocker In-Reply-To: <4439ee330907220146j3300b7b3pc1dc9b9921691312@mail.gmail.com> References: <4439ee330907220146j3300b7b3pc1dc9b9921691312@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7E5C37AE-6561-45AA-B99F-5C1DC8BD0414@gmail.com> Hi, Could Linux developer allow this kernel code inclusion in exchange for a waver of responsibility for all companies using Linux commercially (and non-commercially) against Microsoft patents? Microsoft would have to agree not to sue anyone anymore for software patents claims on Linux code in order to have this GPL code included in Linux Kernel. :) After all, there is no obligation to take some code into the Linux Kernel code and that would be a perfectly legal private-law contract. Ahh... "leverage", the only term some people understand when they don't get "collaboration"... Phil. -- They Make Exception Laws, We Create Exception Licenses http://www.eGPL.info On 22 Jul 2009, at 10:46, Nishant | निशाँत wrote: > Understanding Microsoft's Linux code shocker > by Ina Fried > tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1> > > Microsoft dropped a mini-bombshell on Monday, announcing that it is > contributing thousands of lines of code for inclusion in Linux. > > But lest anyone think Microsoft suffered a massive head trauma over > the weekend, the code it is releasing isn't really about helping Linux > compete better with Microsoft. The drivers are really geared at making > Windows a better host for Linux. > > "The Linux device drivers we are releasing are designed so Linux can > run in enlightened mode, giving it the same optimized synthetic > devices as a Windows virtual machine running on top of Hyper-V," Tom > Hanrahan, director of Microsoft's Open Source Technology Center, said > in a statement. "Without this driver code, Linux can run on top of > Windows, but without the same high performance levels." > > As noted by CNET Blog Network writer Matt Asay, Microsoft is releasing > three drivers for Linux under the GPL that governs Linux. > > Although Microsoft has released open-source code in the past, the > company has generally favored licenses other than the GPL. That said, > the GPL is the way into the Linux kernel and Microsoft wants this code > in Linux. > > In an article on its press Web site, Microsoft acknowledged the > departure. The company has also been going after Linux for years, both > on the marketing and legal fronts. > > "Today, in a break from the ordinary, Microsoft released 20,000 lines > of device driver code to the Linux community," Microsoft said. "The > code, which includes three Linux device drivers, has been submitted to > the Linux kernel community for inclusion in the Linux tree." > > The move comes at a time of mixed signals from Redmond when it comes > to Linux. Microsoft has said that the browser-based versions of > Office, which are due out next year as part of Office 2010, will > support Firefox, bringing at least a portion of Office to Linux for > the first time. > > It has also made peace with a number of Linux companies, most notably > a 2006 pact with Novell, but has continued to rattle its legal saber > at those with whom it has not struck patent deals. > > After years of making claims that many Linux implementations violate > Microsoft patents, Microsoft finally took a case to court in February, > filing suit against navigation systems maker TomTom. > > The two sides later settled, but the settlement left many unanswered > questions and Microsoft hasn't said if it will take similar action > against other companies. > > Although the latest move is clearly designed to bolster Windows as a > hosting environment for servers running both Linux and Windows, to me > there is something slightly discordant about adding code to something > you feel is already infringing on your intellectual property. Perhaps, > though, that's just the very definition of co-opetition. > > Microsoft is in an interesting position--seeking to compete with Linux > while also understanding that many companies run both operating > systems. Not only is it about making its business customers happy, but > there is good money to be made by owning the management and > virtualization layers, even if there is some Linux running atop > Microsoft's stack. > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From glee at opalgroup.net Thu Jul 23 01:39:57 2009 From: glee at opalgroup.net (Opal Events) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:09:57 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Drug Discovery: Academic and Industry Partnerships Message-ID: <55aac9b35bda068aaa46574e0011ad7f@opalgroup.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090722/76213540/attachment-0001.html From nicheant at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 21:09:51 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:09:51 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Gates wants window to India's national ID project Message-ID: <4439ee330907240839t24b87ed3vccf909cf496347fe@mail.gmail.com> Take note of the portions on the national ID project. Nishant. ----------------------------------------------------- http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gates-wants-window-to-indias-national-id-project/97823-7.html Gates wants window to India's national ID project New Delhi: Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Friday said it would be a "big mistake" if the US curbs the entry of skilled workers from abroad, rallying behind the "smart people" from countries like India that has a globally recognised outsourcing industry. He also said Microsoft will like to partner the Indian government in its ambitious plan to give a unique identity number and a biometric card to each of its 1.17 billion people. "I can't make any predictions. Immigration policy could get more difficult. Microsoft as a company is very vocal. It would be a big mistake," said Gates, here for overseeing the philanthropic activities of the foundation he has formed with his wife Melinda. "The US Congress is very tough on immigration. But why not make an exception for smart people?" he said at an interactive session organised by the National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom) at the Durbar Hall of Taj Palace Hotel here. Gates even maintained that the job market in the US had not shifted anywhere, when asked to respond to US President Barack Obama's comments that he will not like jobs to be taken away from Buffalo to outsourcing companies in Bangalore. "If we get the statistics, about 1,800 US people are working here (in India)." Even though Gates now devotes most of his time to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he has always been vocal about his support for migrant professionals that is reflected in the number of such workers at the Microsoft offices in the US. According to Nasscom, Indian nationals accounted for 157,726 H1B visas, or 37.8 percent of the 409,619 admissions under this US programme in 2008. This is a drop of about 3,000 professionals compared to 2007. Gates said he was also keen to partner India in its ambitious plan to issue a single identity card and number to its 1.17 billion citizens for which a new authority has been formed under Infosys Technologies co-founder Nandan Nilekani. "Microsoft wants to be part of the Unique Identification Authority of India project," he said, adding that he hoped to meet with Nilekani to discuss the issue. "I am very excited about the project. It is a great initiative. We need to make sure every data is accurate. From a mobile phone number to anything," Gates told the conference, also addressed by Minister for State for Communications Sachin Pilot. During his current visit, Gates announced a major increase in his foundation's AIDS prevention commitment to India to $338 million, saying India's drive in this regard could serve as a model for the rest of the world. Launched in 2003, his family foundation provides funding and support to targeted HIV prevention programmes in six Indian states, including Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, and along the national trucking routes through an initiative called "Avahan". Prior to this, the foundation had committed a total of $258 million for the purpose. Gates, who has always maintained a packed schedule during his visits to India, was also scheduled to meet with Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and hold a videoconference with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Another reason behind the current visit is to receive the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development on behalf of his foundation, being recognised for "pioneering and exemplary philanthropic work around the world and in India in health". As of July, the foundation has committed nearly $1 billion for health and development projects in India. Globally, it has committed nearly $12 billion in grants for global health, the foundation claimed in a statement. From patrice at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 27 16:16:47 2009 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:46:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Hack the State! Message-ID: <62571.94.212.51.22.1248691607.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Just got this interesting link: http://eytom.com/hackthestate/ it leads to: http://eytom.com/hackthestate/thesis/outline.php and entire thesis on Hack the State! shame most links are broken on it. Indeed, but what is there (outline & abstract is already interesting enough. cheers, p+2D! From jeebesh at sarai.net Thu Jul 30 12:12:09 2009 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:12:09 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Note on the eve of Right to Education Bill in Lok Sabha Message-ID: From Anil Sadgopal 29th July 2009 Dear Friends, I write to you this personal note on the eve of a [non]-historic so- called Right to Education Bill, 2008 Bill being tabled in Lok Sabha. Through this Note, I would attempt to share with you my sense of deep anguish and concern for the future of our Republic in its sixtieth year. Although, this Note is limited to the issue of education as a Fundamental Right, the implications encompass all aspects and dimensions of our socio-economic life. Here is weblink to my article published in The Telegraph on 28th July 2009 (the original title of the article read as “The Bill That Denies Right to Education”):http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090728/jsp/opinion/story_11287996.jsp Tomorrow (i.e. 29 July 2009) the said Bill will be tabled in Lok Sabha, speeches made (“I rise to support the Bill but . . . . “) and passed expectedly by a unanimous vote after oral assurances (minus Constitutional guarantees) by the Minister of HRD that all will be well. This has been the history of this legislative process since 28th November 2001 when the 86th (then 93rd) Constitutional Amendment Bill was tabled in Lok Sabha, even as 40,000 people from several parts of India were holding a protest rally from Ramlila Grounds to Rajghat and back to Ramlila Grounds. Once this is done, we will wait for the President to sign the Bill. The Presidential assent will mark the full conversion of a Fundamental Right into an ordinary statutory right. Who said that? Believe it or not, this was stated by the HRD Minister Mr. Kapil Sibal in May 2002 in Rajya Sabha, of course then sitting in opposition as member of the Congress Party! Why did he say that? As an eminent judicial mind of the country, he knew that the Article 21A introduced by the 86th Amendment has the conditionality that free and compulsory education shall be provided “in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” Such conditionality is not attached to any other Fundamental Right.. The State was determined to attach this conditionality in order to use it for enacting a law (now being tabled in Lok Sabha on 30th July 2009) whose central objective will be to legitimize all the dilution and distortion that the school education policy has undergone initially as part of World Bank’s DPEP in 1990s and later in SSA during the present decade. This was necessary in order to use the Constitution for putting a stamp of approval on the neo-liberal programme of privatization and commercialization of school education. Sibal’s 100-day agenda almost completes a critical phase of the neo-liberal agenda of which this Bill is an integral part. On 20th July 2009, when the present Bill was tabled in Rajya Sabha, several members inquired why the children below six years of ago have been kept out of their existing Fundamental Right to balanced nutrition, health support and pre-primary education. Ironically, the same Mr. Sibal who criticized Article 21A more than seven years ago in Rajya Sabha had no qualms in stating that “the [present] legislation is in the context of [Article] 21A and that is why we have not dealt with 0-5 years.” This is why I have been consistently maintaining since November 2001 that 86th Constitutional Amendment is a neo-liberal intervention in our Constitution and the consequential Right to Education Bill under Article 21A in Lok Sabha has to be viewed as a neo-liberal Bill. I wait for history to vindicate my stand. On 23rd July 2009, the All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF- RTE) organized a delegation to meet the Lok Sabha Speaker Ms. Meira Kumar (see attachment for the Memorandum with a detailed critique of the Bill). The delegation was led by Com. D. Raja, Natl. Secy of CPI and a Rajya Sabha member. Ms. Medha Patkar and Sh. Sandeep Pande joined the delegation and endorsed the AIF-RTE stand. We appealed to Ms. Meira Kumar to return the Bill to the Ministry’s Parliamentary Standing Committee (or a joint select committee) with directions to hold Public Hearings on the Bill around the country in a democratic and transparent manner. Why this demand at this late stage? To be sure, this demand is 4 years and 8 months old. Public Hearings on the Bill (as well as during its drafting process) have been demanded since CABE’s Kapil Sibal Committee began the process of drafting the present Bill in November 2004. However, not one Public Hearing has been held either by CABE or by the HRD Ministry – not even by the PM’s Office which sat over the various drafts – each one more diluted that the previous one – for almost 39 months from August 2005 onwards. Public Hearings were denied even by the Ministry’s Parliamentary Standing Committee which preferred to discuss the Bill with Ministry’s bureaucrats and official ‘educrats’ in closed chambers rather than with representatives of various education rights organizations or people’s movements, refusing to even accept submissions and Memoranda. Hence this demand to the Lok Sabha speaker. You may like to ask what happens to children’s Fundamental Right while the Public Hearings are held and the Bill amended or re-drafted on the basis of the public feedback. Would this not further delay the provision of the Fundamental Right which is about to be given after waiting for it for sixty years? NO, NOT ALL! This is so because the Fundamental Right to Education, without any conditionality whatsoever, is inherent in the Constitution, as declared by Supreme Court’s Unnikrishnan Judgment (1993). Various High Courts have been giving their judgments on education as a Fundamental Right under Unnikrishnan Judgment for the past several years. This Bill is designed only to dilute and distort the existing Fundamental Right. On 28th July, Shiksha Adhikar Manch, Bhopal organized a day-long peaceful dharna (with some members fasting) in front of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s statue in Bhopal and underlined three major violations of the Constitution by the Bill being tabled before Lok Sabha. In addition, the Manch urged upon the Lok Sabha members to “rise above their narrow party considerations, listen to the voice of their inner conscience and stand up against this anti-Constitutional, anti- education and anti-child Bill that denies Fundamental Right to almost 45 crore children up to 18 years of age.” This is critical for protecting the Constitution and saving our education system from further deterioration and neo-liberal assaults which this Bill is going to institutionalize (see attachment for Manch’ Press Release in Hindi). On the eve of this farcical and neo-liberal Bill being tabled in Lok Sabha, AIF-RTE invites all fellow citizens and like-minded people’s organizations to join us in building a powerful long-term movement to challenge Sibal’s agenda to sell our education system to corporate houses and the global capital and, in the process also build people’s consciousness about the Constitution’s vision of Right to Education. Before closing, let me add that while what is focused upon in this Note constitutes reflections on the neo-liberal assault on Fundamental Right to Education, such an assault is taking place simultaneously on all sectors of the nation’s life. Drawing lessons from our sectoral concerns, we must learn to build a common political agenda to effectively resist this wide-ranging and multi-dimensional attack endangering the future of India as a sovereign nation and its survival as a democratic, egalitarian and secular society. ZINDABAAD! Sincerely, Anil Sadgopal Attachments AIF-RTE Memorandum dated 23.07.2009 to Lok Sabha Speaker. Shiksha Adhikar Manch’ Press Release dated 28.07.2009 regarding the dilution of the Constitution by the Bill and our call to the Lok sabha members. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090730/5b2fad51/attachment-0001.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Thu Jul 30 12:13:04 2009 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:13:04 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] YJA - Supreme Court decides in Yamuna Case Message-ID: <57158B88-14D1-4A37-A523-34B56E4DC196@sarai.net> From: yamunajiye at gmail.com Dear Friends, Not unexpectdely, a three member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India today set aside in to-to the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the Yamuna case (Rajendra Singh and othrs v Govt of Delhi and othrs). It declared its judgement based on just a single day hearing on 15 July 2009 where no experts were ever consulted that: a) The area in question is not even the flood plains b) The Supreme Court Judgement in the Akshardham case (where the court itself had observed that because the petitioners are unable to REBUT the DDA's affidavit .....) is a binding precedence c) The NEERI report 2008 (which had been blasted by both the judges at the HC of Delhi as being tailor made to suit the DDA's interests) is valid and applicable d) That a committee headed by the Lt Governor, CM of Delhi and Dr RK Pachauri shall monitor the construction (what is still left to monitor we fail to understand). But if everything is fine then what is left to be monitored? Clearly the Supreme Court has gone overboard in its efforts to please the powers that be. An existing murder of the flood plains (Akshardham) has been used to justify the murder of yet another part of the river bed / flood plains. It is the very NADIR. The people of this country have been failed on their river front; a) By the legislative who have failed to legislate for the rivers till date b) By the executive who despite knowing all the wrong it were committing has persisted with it c) And now by the Judiciary that has gone totaly overboard without even a semblence of sanity So now it is left only to the PEOPLE"S COURT to tell all the three organs of the state that U ARE IN THE WRONG. Our rivers and their flood plains are not commodities to be exploited but life giving entities to be preserved avd revered. We shall soon deconstruct the Supreme Court judgement line by line for your information. As a beginning kindly peruse the file notings in the matter as we had received under the RTI Act to see for yourself the dirty game of vested interests playing havoc with the life line river. Kindly note in particular the hand written notings where conditional clearance has been issued not because merit decides so but because "the DDA is pressing hard". It is also time for the SUNITA NARAINS, MEDHA PATKARS, HIMANSHU THAKKARS, DINESH MISHRAS, INTACHs and WWFs etc in the country to come out in open and resist the onslaught of the state on our rivers. AMEN ! Happy reading..... Manoj Misra Convenor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090730/2eb4f0e0/attachment.html From Osama at defindia.net Thu Jul 30 11:44:21 2009 From: Osama at defindia.net (Osama at defindia.net) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:44:21 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Manthan Award South Asia 2009 - Last Two Days Left for Nominations Message-ID: The Manthan Award South Asia 2009 Secretariat House no # 44, IIIrd Floor, Kalu Sarai, near Narayana IIT Academy, New Delhi - 110 016, INDIA Tel # +91 11 26532786 Telefax # +91 11 26532787 Email # manthanaward at defindia.net Log on to : http://www.manthanaward.org Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090730/8662fa30/attachment.html