James Love:
This week's negotiation went far better than almost anyone had anticipated, and many share the credit for the excellent outcome. The United States government had greatly moderated its positions and tone, and was credited by many delegates for its constructive and open approach to the negotiations on a topic for which the US is normally considered a hard-liner. Several European States, including for example the UK, Germany and Switzerland had worked hard to find ways to reaching consensus with key developing countries. Indian persistent efforts to engage the US and European negotiators was helpful and effective. Argentina and Brazil were among the countries that had pushed the hardest for the reform agenda. Chile's leadership on the issue of the public domain was key. The contributions from the Africa Group were excellent, including for example countries like South Africa. Very high marks were given to Trevor Clarke, the impressive Chair of the meeting, who hails from Barbados.
In June, WIPO will look at a much more ambitious set of proposals, most of which were opposed by the United States or the European Commission in 2005. The June meeting, which is expected to be much more difficult, will look at topics such as proposed treaty on access to knowledge -- a startling departure from WIPO's longstanding efforts to focus largely on expanding the scope and enforcement of intellectual property rights. More.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
[A2k] Financial Times: Fears over reach of US patent law
Fears over reach of US patent law
By Patti Waldmeir in Washington
Published: February 22 2007 02:00
Several justices of the US Supreme Court yesterday expressed concern about the risks of extending the reach of US patent law to other countries, as they struggled to find a way to bring the law into the digital age.
By Patti Waldmeir in Washington
Published: February 22 2007 02:00
Several justices of the US Supreme Court yesterday expressed concern about the risks of extending the reach of US patent law to other countries, as they struggled to find a way to bring the law into the digital age.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Consumers International statement at WIPO
Consumers International Statement on competition policy and the public domain
February 21, 2007
Consumers International is very supportive of the inclusion of C28 as an actionable item to enable WIPO to assist countries to use competition policy to redress the abuse of IPRs to the detriment of consumers. We welcome the comments made by the Republic of South Africa and Germany which that competition policy is an effective tool to curb anti-competitive practices. We emphasize that Articles 6, 7, 8, 31.k and Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement frame WTO members’ policy options in using competition policy safeguards.
As some delegates have indicated, the relationship between competition laws and intellectual property rights are complex. As WIPO and other multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations seek new intellectual property right norms, and place more obligations on countries to enforce those rights, it is quite important to fully appreciate the role of competition policy in addressing certain problems that can arise, particularly those problems that harm consumers.
It would be very useful if WIPO could collect information from member states on the cases where competition laws have been used to remedy anticompetitive practices. WIPO could also play a role in helping member states understand their rights and obligations under Article 40 of the TRIPS in cases involving disputes over anticompetitive practices in the licensing of intellectual property rights when those practices involve actions in more than one country.
An initial report from the WIPO secretariat on the possible implementations of Article 40 in cross-border cases would be a useful deliverable.
Consumers International also reiterates its support of D32 as an actionable item. This exhorts WIPO to “deepen the analysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain.”
WIPO could provide a report that provides case studies on this. Such case studies might discuss the decision by several member states to support activities to place the human genome in the public domain, or how the World Wide Web Consortium and other bodies have created technologies for the Internet that are free from intellectual property claims. In both instances, by placing some data and technology into the public domain, there was a more competitive environment for the next generation of inventions and services, including inventions and works that are fully protected by patents and copyrights.
A deeper understanding of the relationship between the public domain and intellectual property rights is timely and important.
February 21, 2007
Consumers International is very supportive of the inclusion of C28 as an actionable item to enable WIPO to assist countries to use competition policy to redress the abuse of IPRs to the detriment of consumers. We welcome the comments made by the Republic of South Africa and Germany which that competition policy is an effective tool to curb anti-competitive practices. We emphasize that Articles 6, 7, 8, 31.k and Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement frame WTO members’ policy options in using competition policy safeguards.
As some delegates have indicated, the relationship between competition laws and intellectual property rights are complex. As WIPO and other multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations seek new intellectual property right norms, and place more obligations on countries to enforce those rights, it is quite important to fully appreciate the role of competition policy in addressing certain problems that can arise, particularly those problems that harm consumers.
It would be very useful if WIPO could collect information from member states on the cases where competition laws have been used to remedy anticompetitive practices. WIPO could also play a role in helping member states understand their rights and obligations under Article 40 of the TRIPS in cases involving disputes over anticompetitive practices in the licensing of intellectual property rights when those practices involve actions in more than one country.
An initial report from the WIPO secretariat on the possible implementations of Article 40 in cross-border cases would be a useful deliverable.
Consumers International also reiterates its support of D32 as an actionable item. This exhorts WIPO to “deepen the analysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain.”
WIPO could provide a report that provides case studies on this. Such case studies might discuss the decision by several member states to support activities to place the human genome in the public domain, or how the World Wide Web Consortium and other bodies have created technologies for the Internet that are free from intellectual property claims. In both instances, by placing some data and technology into the public domain, there was a more competitive environment for the next generation of inventions and services, including inventions and works that are fully protected by patents and copyrights.
A deeper understanding of the relationship between the public domain and intellectual property rights is timely and important.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Australian band groks Doctorow's CC Scifi
Doctorow: Midnight.Haulkerton, a "Grok Rock" band from Australia, has very kindly recorded a song inspired by my new short story collection, Overclocked: Stories of the Future Present -- just the first of more to come.
> Future shock, present shock, we’re already in past shock
> Too much to go to and nowhere to go, we’ve got way too much to know
> Something in the future’s already in the past, the present’s an illusion
> Cos the world is spinning way too fast
>
> Overclocked, clock shock
> This watch never stops
> Overclocked, time’s fast
> You’ve been blasted in the past
Song:
http://www.midnighthaulkerton.com/alfadir/?page_id=42
Overclocked:
http://craphound.com/overclocked
> Future shock, present shock, we’re already in past shock
> Too much to go to and nowhere to go, we’ve got way too much to know
> Something in the future’s already in the past, the present’s an illusion
> Cos the world is spinning way too fast
>
> Overclocked, clock shock
> This watch never stops
> Overclocked, time’s fast
> You’ve been blasted in the past
Song:
http://www.midnighthaulkerton
Overclocked:
http://craphound.com/overclock
Wesch interview
"For me, cultural anthropology is a continuous exercise in expanding my mind and my empathy, building primarily from one simple principle: everything is connected. This is true on many levels. First, everything including the environment, technology, economy, social structure, politics, religion, art and more are all interconnected. As I tried to illustrate in the video, this means that a change in one area (such as the way we communicate) can have a profound effect on everything else, including family, love, and our sense of being itself. Second, everything is connected throughout all time, and so as anthropologists we take a very broad view of human history, looking thousands or even millions of years into the past and into the future as well. And finally, all people on the planet are connected. This has always been true environmentally because we share the same planet. Today it is even more true with increasing economic and media globalization."
http://battellemedia.com/archives/003386.php
http://battellemedia.com/archives/003386.php
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) at WIPO PCDA
Thiru Balasubramaniam:
New ways of sharing information over the Internet are now rapidly expanding education and development opportunities, and creating vast new business opportunities for those who understand the new knowledge ecosystems.
Time Magazine’s recent decision to declare “You” as the person of the year was recognition that something new is happening between all of us.
WIPO needs to be part of the new way of thinking. WIPO needs to change, and begin to acknowledge, respect, and exploit the new opportunities that we are all facing.
KEI will work with the PCDA to ensure the development agenda is not simply a repacking of the old ideas and mission, but also the new ideas, and a modern mission.
For this to happen, WIPO needs to have a fresh commitment to exploring the new business models, and topics such as
- Creating value from open standards,
- Expanding access to scholarly and scientific research,
- The sharing and repurposing of information in new knowledge communities,
- Knowledge as a shared asset and knowledge creation as collaboration, rather than a commodity, and
- Using prizes rather than prices to stimulate drug development.
KEI (CPTech) Has recently won an award for their work in this area.
New ways of sharing information over the Internet are now rapidly expanding education and development opportunities, and creating vast new business opportunities for those who understand the new knowledge ecosystems.
Time Magazine’s recent decision to declare “You” as the person of the year was recognition that something new is happening between all of us.
WIPO needs to be part of the new way of thinking. WIPO needs to change, and begin to acknowledge, respect, and exploit the new opportunities that we are all facing.
KEI will work with the PCDA to ensure the development agenda is not simply a repacking of the old ideas and mission, but also the new ideas, and a modern mission.
For this to happen, WIPO needs to have a fresh commitment to exploring the new business models, and topics such as
- Creating value from open standards,
- Expanding access to scholarly and scientific research,
- The sharing and repurposing of information in new knowledge communities,
- Knowledge as a shared asset and knowledge creation as collaboration, rather than a commodity, and
- Using prizes rather than prices to stimulate drug development.
KEI (CPTech) Has recently won an award for their work in this area.
Tim Berners-Lee: On ceiling and foundation technologies
"Proprietary music download systems are ceiling technologies to the extent that the technologists design to be also being the only store in town, rather than creating an open market. Though putting a lid on further innovation, they are still providing a service, and making sure they profit from it.
Ceiling technologies are the end of the road for innovation.
When you want to make a foundation technology, you need to look ahead. You need to put aside the short term return on investment questions and look at the long term."
The Mobile WebThursday, February 15, 2007
In Good Company Michael Geist CA
[One of those lists that it would have been nice for Australia to be on]
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (several U.S. lobby groups including the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, the ESA) has just released a submission to the U.S. Trade Representative that frequently serves as a blueprint for U.S. commentary on intellectual property protection around the world. The list covers 60 countries,including most of the world's leading economies.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1679/125/
These are just fourteen examples - there are dozens more countries on the list, including many developing countries, each invariably criticized for not adopting the DMCA, not extending the term of copyright, not throwing enough people in jail, or creating too many exceptions to support education and other societal goals. In fact, the majority of the world's population finds itself on the list, with 23 of the world's 30 most populous countries targeted for criticism.
* Japan is criticized for a wide range of issues including the absence of statutory damages, copyright term extension, stronger TPM protection, narrowing private use exceptions, and the establishment of camcording legislation
* Sweden receives special mention for widespread Internet piracy and being host to thePirateBay.org
* New Zealand is criticized for its copyright reform bill, which, much like Canada's Bill C-60, adopts a more balanced approach to TPMs. For its effort, the government is also incorrectly told that the proposal "fall far short of meeting international minimum standards." Moreover, the bill's time shifting provisions are criticized, despite the fact that the U.S. has far more liberal fair use provisions.
* Switzerland is criticized for its TPM approach, which apparently does not meet the standard in the EUCD or the DMCA, along with a broad private copying provision and the need for camcording
legislation.
* South Africa is criticized for failing to sign the WIPO Internet treaties
* Hong Kong is criticized for its approach on TPMs and for proposing new exceptions for educational purposes. It is also urged to extend the term of copyright.
* South Korea is criticized for its TPM approach, education exceptions, its private copying system, and for failing to extend the term of copyright.
* Israel is criticized for failing to implement TPM legislation and for considering a fair use provision that mirrors the U.S. approach (the IIPA claims this might be viewed by the public as a "free ticket to copy.")
* Mexico is criticized for its TPM approach and for the absence of an ISP notice and takedown system
* Italy is criticized for doubt about its TPM approach and for failing to establish an ISP notice and takedown system
* Brazil is criticized for failing to ratify the WIPO Internet treaties and for granting exceptions to university students
* Greece is criticized for making it difficult to obtain the personal identities of ISP subscribers and for levying a surcharge at movie theatres that are used to support Greek films
* Spain is criticized for failing to place sufficient liability on ISPs for activity on their networks
* India is criticized for its TPM provisions and "overly broad" exceptions
The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (several U.S. lobby groups including the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, the ESA) has just released a submission to the U.S. Trade Representative that frequently serves as a blueprint for U.S. commentary on intellectual property protection around the world. The list covers 60 countries,including most of the world's leading economies.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1679/125/
These are just fourteen examples - there are dozens more countries on the list, including many developing countries, each invariably criticized for not adopting the DMCA, not extending the term of copyright, not throwing enough people in jail, or creating too many exceptions to support education and other societal goals. In fact, the majority of the world's population finds itself on the list, with 23 of the world's 30 most populous countries targeted for criticism.
* Japan is criticized for a wide range of issues including the absence of statutory damages, copyright term extension, stronger TPM protection, narrowing private use exceptions, and the establishment of camcording legislation
* Sweden receives special mention for widespread Internet piracy and being host to thePirateBay.org
* New Zealand is criticized for its copyright reform bill, which, much like Canada's Bill C-60, adopts a more balanced approach to TPMs. For its effort, the government is also incorrectly told that the proposal "fall far short of meeting international minimum standards." Moreover, the bill's time shifting provisions are criticized, despite the fact that the U.S. has far more liberal fair use provisions.
* Switzerland is criticized for its TPM approach, which apparently does not meet the standard in the EUCD or the DMCA, along with a broad private copying provision and the need for camcording
legislation.
* South Africa is criticized for failing to sign the WIPO Internet treaties
* Hong Kong is criticized for its approach on TPMs and for proposing new exceptions for educational purposes. It is also urged to extend the term of copyright.
* South Korea is criticized for its TPM approach, education exceptions, its private copying system, and for failing to extend the term of copyright.
* Israel is criticized for failing to implement TPM legislation and for considering a fair use provision that mirrors the U.S. approach (the IIPA claims this might be viewed by the public as a "free ticket to copy.")
* Mexico is criticized for its TPM approach and for the absence of an ISP notice and takedown system
* Italy is criticized for doubt about its TPM approach and for failing to establish an ISP notice and takedown system
* Brazil is criticized for failing to ratify the WIPO Internet treaties and for granting exceptions to university students
* Greece is criticized for making it difficult to obtain the personal identities of ISP subscribers and for levying a surcharge at movie theatres that are used to support Greek films
* Spain is criticized for failing to place sufficient liability on ISPs for activity on their networks
* India is criticized for its TPM provisions and "overly broad" exceptions
The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Copyright and orphans. Right of way and freedom.
The copyright law is like one hand clapping.
That one hand has a momentum in its own interests.
It is growing claws because there is no check or balance.
The hand pushes and there is no effective resisting hand.
Debating copyright from within the controlling hand perspective might achieve a manicure, but there needs to be a well formed and well understood/supported hand of policy which everyone values as the balancing requirement.
For many nations fair use is not in the picture, for the USA it isnt effective.
Effective policy around access and social function of information is the hand we need to make people listen to reform.
Lessig's orphan works registration, without a second hand, will result in those same businesses sponsoring/owning the means of registration. Couple that with proposals for broadcast treaties where the lobby groups have already expressed desire to claim copyright by broadcasting and you have a model where doing a search on copyright material will in effect broadcast all the searched material and make the material copyright to the registering body.
Registering copyrighted material also establishes a structure which is appropriate for exclusive rights rather than one which allows for independent plurality of creativity.
We need a responding hand.
It would be interesting to do a study of the different flavours of progress or creativity which have happened during different phases of law around information and creativity. I feel that the restricitve model benifits some individuals but that openness is what moves us forward as a community.
Blues & jazz were developed in a context where people learned from each other. 12 bar blues is a framework many people use. In contrast these same people are currently suing for fragments of sound let alone whole chord patterns. We are not creating out of nothing. We are making incremental contributions to a body of knowledge and a flow of thoughts and creativity. How we carry the baton has impact on future potential. It has impact on our current potential because there are fences around so many components of our cultural and technical resources.
For every piece of the jigsaw that one person owns exclusively they are missing other pieces which might make for a new sound or image style.
Socially music changes as a movement when people do not sue when communities of people move to explore the sounds in a specific style.
Scientifically, some companies are doing well with restricting access to medicine.
Socially people are dying of AIDs because generic drugs are not available.
Richard J Roberts, Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine in 1993, said: “Open access to the published scientific literature is one of the most desirable goals of our current scientific enterprise. Since most science is supported by taxpayers it is unreasonable that they should not have immediate and free access to the results of that research. Furthermore, for the research community the literature is our lifeblood. By impeding access through subscriptions and then fragmenting the literature among many different publishers, with no central source, we have allowed the commercial sector to impede progress. It is high time that we rethought the model and made sure that everyone had equal and unimpeded access to the whole literature. How can we do cutting edge research if we don’t know where the cutting edge is?”
The petition is available at: http://www.ec-petition.eu/
Environmental and genetic information is currently held individually at a time when systemically we have global problems. There is significant risk of irreparable changes to the sustainability of this ecology system we are a part of, but the decision making systems we are using are still strongly tied to the interests of individuals, and their control of markets and information.
We are now operating at a scale where we need to know globally.
We are making legislation which vests those able to fund legislation in their own interests.
This ‘law for me’ approach is generating disability and degeneration in social infrastructure, policy and opportunity. Its not just copyright its the right of one powerful person at the expense of everyone else. Right of way v freedom for all.
War for profit. War for oil. War for diamonds.
DMCA blocking participation. No justice for people in Guantanamo Bay.
It isnt just copyright. It is basically feudal opportunistic thinking.
There needs to be authentic public policy and appreciation of the role of information to us as a world community. When the rights of one break the world its probably time to rethink.
That one hand has a momentum in its own interests.
It is growing claws because there is no check or balance.
The hand pushes and there is no effective resisting hand.
Debating copyright from within the controlling hand perspective might achieve a manicure, but there needs to be a well formed and well understood/supported hand of policy which everyone values as the balancing requirement.
For many nations fair use is not in the picture, for the USA it isnt effective.
Effective policy around access and social function of information is the hand we need to make people listen to reform.
Lessig's orphan works registration, without a second hand, will result in those same businesses sponsoring/owning the means of registration. Couple that with proposals for broadcast treaties where the lobby groups have already expressed desire to claim copyright by broadcasting and you have a model where doing a search on copyright material will in effect broadcast all the searched material and make the material copyright to the registering body.
Registering copyrighted material also establishes a structure which is appropriate for exclusive rights rather than one which allows for independent plurality of creativity.
We need a responding hand.
It would be interesting to do a study of the different flavours of progress or creativity which have happened during different phases of law around information and creativity. I feel that the restricitve model benifits some individuals but that openness is what moves us forward as a community.
Blues & jazz were developed in a context where people learned from each other. 12 bar blues is a framework many people use. In contrast these same people are currently suing for fragments of sound let alone whole chord patterns. We are not creating out of nothing. We are making incremental contributions to a body of knowledge and a flow of thoughts and creativity. How we carry the baton has impact on future potential. It has impact on our current potential because there are fences around so many components of our cultural and technical resources.
For every piece of the jigsaw that one person owns exclusively they are missing other pieces which might make for a new sound or image style.
Socially music changes as a movement when people do not sue when communities of people move to explore the sounds in a specific style.
Scientifically, some companies are doing well with restricting access to medicine.
Socially people are dying of AIDs because generic drugs are not available.
Richard J Roberts, Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine in 1993, said: “Open access to the published scientific literature is one of the most desirable goals of our current scientific enterprise. Since most science is supported by taxpayers it is unreasonable that they should not have immediate and free access to the results of that research. Furthermore, for the research community the literature is our lifeblood. By impeding access through subscriptions and then fragmenting the literature among many different publishers, with no central source, we have allowed the commercial sector to impede progress. It is high time that we rethought the model and made sure that everyone had equal and unimpeded access to the whole literature. How can we do cutting edge research if we don’t know where the cutting edge is?”
The petition is available at: http://www.ec-petition.eu/
Environmental and genetic information is currently held individually at a time when systemically we have global problems. There is significant risk of irreparable changes to the sustainability of this ecology system we are a part of, but the decision making systems we are using are still strongly tied to the interests of individuals, and their control of markets and information.
We are now operating at a scale where we need to know globally.
We are making legislation which vests those able to fund legislation in their own interests.
This ‘law for me’ approach is generating disability and degeneration in social infrastructure, policy and opportunity. Its not just copyright its the right of one powerful person at the expense of everyone else. Right of way v freedom for all.
War for profit. War for oil. War for diamonds.
DMCA blocking participation. No justice for people in Guantanamo Bay.
It isnt just copyright. It is basically feudal opportunistic thinking.
There needs to be authentic public policy and appreciation of the role of information to us as a world community. When the rights of one break the world its probably time to rethink.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Open Source Science: A New Model for Innovation
Karim Lakhani
Innovations happen at the intersection of disciplines. People have talked about that a lot and I think we're providing some systematic evidence now with this study. Another example is that a pharmaceutical company got unusual toxicology results for an ongoing drug study. The best toxicologists within the firm had a look at the results and couldn't understand them. Their external academic consultants, also toxicologists, also failed to interpret the results. Then they finally posted it onto InnoCentive. A protein crystallographer looked at the problem and basically gave an off-the-shelf solution. The pharmaceutical company had never viewed the problem as a crystallography problem; they thought it was a toxicology problem. Again, this opened up a whole new domain for the firm to pursue in terms of future studies as to how to think about the types of problems they face.
We see this in many different places. The insight is that what you want to do is open up your problem to other people—not just to serendipity, but in some systematic way.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5544.html
Innovations happen at the intersection of disciplines. People have talked about that a lot and I think we're providing some systematic evidence now with this study. Another example is that a pharmaceutical company got unusual toxicology results for an ongoing drug study. The best toxicologists within the firm had a look at the results and couldn't understand them. Their external academic consultants, also toxicologists, also failed to interpret the results. Then they finally posted it onto InnoCentive. A protein crystallographer looked at the problem and basically gave an off-the-shelf solution. The pharmaceutical company had never viewed the problem as a crystallography problem; they thought it was a toxicology problem. Again, this opened up a whole new domain for the firm to pursue in terms of future studies as to how to think about the types of problems they face.
We see this in many different places. The insight is that what you want to do is open up your problem to other people—not just to serendipity, but in some systematic way.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5544.html
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Patents and the public interest
These folks contribute to the A2K list recently with the Microprocessor issue
http://www.pubpat.org/
Here is a section specifically about software patents
http://www.pubpat.org/softwarepatentwatch/
http://www.pubpat.org/
Here is a section specifically about software patents
http://www.pubpat.org/softwarepatentwatch/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
