Via: "prabhu ram"
WIPO at crossroads over substantive patents law row
Arun S
New Delhi, June 29 The controversial Substantive Patents Law Treaty
(SPLT), aimed at harmonisation of certain practices in patent grant,
search and examination at the global level, will come up before the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) General Assembly
during September-October, a senior official of the world body told FE
on Thursday. There is still no convergence of views on the issue, with
many countries - including India- expressing apprehensions over the
harmonisation move. WIPO is keen to arrive at a consensus on the
issue.
Talking to FE, WIPO deputy director-general designate Narendra K
Sabharwal said the emphasis in WIPO had moved from
legislative-focussed approach to finding out methods as to how
intellectual property could be made a catalyst for development as well
as a growth factor. WIPO's goal now was to find innovative ways to
make IP relevant to developing countries, he said.
Sabharwal, currently the coordinator in the WIPO's coordination office
for external relations, said there was no agreement among the member
countries at the WIPO's standing committee on patents on the proposed
SPLT as the developing countries fear that harmonisation of patents
laws across the world would lead to higher standards which could go
against them.
The developing countries don't want this treaty to become a reality as
they think it would amount to a TRIPS-plus treaty which would make it
difficult for them to have access to important drugs.
On the other hand, according to the proponents of the proposed treaty
in the developed west, it would help reduce the huge backlog of
applications for grant of patents rights.
According to the pro-SPLT lobby, a harmonised law would avoid
duplication of procedure for grant of patents in different countries,
Sabharwal said.
But, the WIPO would remain non-political as it had always been and
would give only legal and technical support as and when requests come
before it, he added.
Developing countries, like India, fear that such a treaty would usurp
their discretionary power to take a decision with respect to patents.
There is also an apprehension in India that the new system will lead
to taking away powers of national governments in patents
determination, search and examination.
URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=132294
Via: Seth Johnson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect Trojan Horse
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:12:54 -0400
From: David Farber
Reply-To: dave@farber.net
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed"
Date: June 29, 2006 12:20:09 PM EDT
To: David Farber
Cc: Dewayne-Net Technology List
Subject: Verizon "Broadband Router" the perfect Trojan Horse
http://www.quote.com/home/news/story.asp?story=59427414
Dewayne's list passed on this press announcement of a new "high
speed home router" that comes with its new FIOS service, allowing
multiple users to access the Internet over the FIOS fiber. This
router is described in the press release in terms of its speed
and customer support capabilities. Verizon carefully notes that
it was designed specifically for the FIOS users.
But this router should also be defined in terms of the "Trojan
Horses" that are embedded, designed by the DSL industry (i.e. the
LECs captive suppliers). The major one being the "Industry
Standard TR-069" touted at the top of the press release as a tool
for customer support. But it is far more than that.
I would note that "Industry Standard TR-069" is not hard to find
on the DSL Forum site. www.dslforum.org/techwork/tr/TR-069.pdf
However, a little (though not much) careful reading is required
to find the reasons why Verizon might like this standard.
For the worst example: I direct the reader to Appendix D.
Appendix D describes an architecture for intercepting web page
requests from the customer and redirecting them based on
arbitrary policy choices. In other words, the standard contains
the perfect tool for controlling every Internet access a customer
(or the Internet-based equipment the customer might choose to buy
at a later time) might make, since Verizon owns and controls the
router.
Note that this router feature does not merely "prioritize"
traffic. This feature is promoted because it meddles with every
web request you make, redirecting some requests to special sites
that are in a business relationship with the owner (Verizon, I
presume, here). Rather than just forwarding packets, it can only
work by singling out and deeply inspecting every web page address
you seek. The history of the web requests will be selectively or
entirely sent to servers on Verizon's network, whether the
customer agrees or not.
From an Internet point of view, this router is severely
non-standard. There is no Internet RFC that has been filed for
the protocol involved. Not even a draft RFC. The DSL Forum is an
organization that has no standing in the Internet community.
Verizon's description of the protocol as "industry standard" is
deceptive. It is a standard, from a very biased part of an
Industry. But it has not followed the normal route by which
Internet protocols are developed and deployed on a worldwide
consensus basis. It violates the basic principles of the Internet
architecture as well, which have created the most rapidly growing
world-wide communications capability in the history of
civilization.
Verizon is perfectly within its rights to develop and deploy any
technology it wants to sell to customers, if that is what they
choose when fully informed of what they are buying. But it must
acknowledge that this equipment and its network are not giving
customers access to The Internet. Instead, Verizon is giving its
customers access to a private walled garden, with limited access
to the Internet when and if it suits Verizon's purposes.
In my personal opinion, putting this kind of technology in the
path of a service that claims to offer Internet access comes
close to *misappropriating* and distorting an important public
good, called The Internet, which was built by voluntary market
cooperation and social contribution, for private gain, and
deceiving its customers in its representations in the process.
You may not agree, but if you do find this a bit fishy, please
share this observation with your friends, and perhaps your US
Senators as an example of how companies like Verizon try to
deceive their customers and to exploit their government-granted
monopoly power over their customers by baiting them with speed,
and reserving the right to switch their communications to
preferred substitutes.
You might also share with your friends the following link to a
proposed bill to protect the Internet from such redefinition by
vendors that pretend to sell Internet Access, but sell something
else instead: http://www.dpsproject.com .
Via: "prabhu ram"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/27/opinion/edming.php
The foolishness of stifling creativity
Francisco Mingorance International Herald Tribune
Published: June 27, 2006
BRUSSELS Intellectual property
Europe today is home to a confused debate over the value of
intellectual property. Put simply, some want to reward intellectual
property while others are striving to penalize it.
Outside Europe, this debate has become the subject of much head-
scratching. India recently adopted new and robust intellectual
property laws and, last year, China overtook Britain, France and
Germany by filing more patents for inventions than the three leading
European economies combined. In April, countries as diverse as
Australia and the Ukraine celebrated World Intellectual Property Day
in tribute to the role of intellectual property in turning ideas into
products, whether it be song or sculpture or software.
Some in Europe respect intellectual property, too. In the run-up to
the World Cup, Germany mounted a campaign on the theme "Land of Ideas"
that celebrates the country's great artists, chemists, engineers,
designers and inventors. It highlights inventions such as Adi
Dassler's first football shoe with cleats, which helped Germany win
the 1954 World Cup; Bayer aspirin; automobiles; polyurethane; cinema
projectors; lasers; solar panels; reconnaissance robots;
traffic-guidance systems; new glues; intelligent textiles, and even an
"intelligent" beer mat.
Germany's message is clear: Its economic power today is a product of
its inventive passion of the past.
France, on the other hand, has been debating amendments to the
European Union's Copyright Directive that would force companies to
give away proprietary technology to their competitors and expose the
creative community to increased digital piracy.
Success in France, it seems, is only welcome if it is "made in France"
- an attitude that is dangerously out of step with the evolution of
ideas on technology and the role of technical standards in promoting
prosperity.
In a global economy, how can France expect other countries to respect
the patents, trademarks and copyrights of its inventors - who have
included such famous figures as Rudolf Diesel (diesel engine), Blaise
Pascal (first digital calculator) and Jean Foucault (the gyroscope) -
if it displays such open disregard for the intellectual property
rights of others?
What's happening in France today isn't just about digital music, either.
It is centered on the broader debate over the value of intellectual
property. Intellectual property, and specifically copyright
protection, gives every author of a creative work, amateur or not, the
choice and freedom to distribute and protect the fruit of their
creativity. Choice and flexibility is embedded, by design, in modern
copyright law.
The debate in France is being watched closely by other countries in
Europe, including the Netherlands and Sweden, where courts and
politicians have come out in favor of file-sharers at the expense of
people and companies whose life works have been usurped by lawless
profiteers, and where many big-time pirates and counterfeiters have
faced a proverbial slap on the wrist for their sins.
The bottom line is that technologies and inventions that have become
indispensable - from portable music players to off-road bicycles to
biofuels, microchips, life-saving drugs and mobile phones - would not
exist if it weren't for the incentive that intellectual property
offers to creative individuals and companies to invest their time and
energy. Europe would do well to remember that as it pursues the
ambitious goal of overtaking the United States in competitiveness.
Europe's global competitors clearly understand the links between
intellectual property and economic prosperity. Europe - and countries
such as France in particular - ought to respect those links, lest
neglect of intellectual property lead to economic, technological and
cultural stagnation.
Francisco Mingorance is European director of public policy for the
Business Software Alliance.
Via: Lawrence Liang
Read http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/2803
for an intveriew with gates in which he admits to watching pirate films in
you tube but what is interesting is that he finally says that stolen may be
a strong word for copyright infringement
Lawrence
WSJ: You watch physics lectures and Harlem Globetrotters [on YouTube]?
Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.
WSJ: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner
wasn't paid for. So yes.
Via: Seth Johnson
Please send the following materials on net neutrality TODAY to
Senators on the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
Send me a note if you'd like rich text files of these materials.
Commerce resumes markup on the Stevens Bill tomorrow morning. We
are working to make sure that language that addresses the nature
of network neutrality is in front of as many of the interested
legislators as possible. We believe that our proposal can move
all parties to a fuller, more constructive understanding of this
issue.
PLEASE FAX these materials or similar to the contacts below. If
you compose your own cover notes, I recommend including:
1) a mention of Steve Wozniak's endorsement,
2) something saying this proposal shows the real definition of
net neutrality, and
3) a statement that net neutrality language needs to talk about
the transport layer, not just "applications, content and
services" -- that that basically means use the word "packet."
The Judiciary Committee has claimed it has oversight over the
matters covered by the Stevens Bill, so there's a tiny text
modification you can use in sending the same materials to them --
just replace the opening of the cover letter below with:
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building 224
Dirksen Senate Office Building 147
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Please see the attached proposed legislative language for
assuring "network neutrality." We think that the Judiciary
Committee will find it particularly interesting in light of the
current discussion related to the Stevens Bill, currently in
the Commerce Committee.
Thanks, all!
:-)
Seth
Suggested Text to Send:
See below the following logistical details.
Targets:
1) Your own Senators
You can get detailed info for any Senator by replacing the "NYJR"
in the following link with appropriate values for the particular
Senator. NYJR stands for New York's Junior Senator -- Hillary
Clinton. So plug in the appropriate state and "graduating class"
for the Senator you want:
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=&member=NYJR&site=ctc
(These links have fax numbers for the committees as well as the
individual members, and links to more detailed info about the
members)
2) Senate Commerce Committee
Majority Fax: 202-224-1259
Minority Fax: 202-228-0303
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=scommerce
Ted Stevens (R-AK) [Chairman] Fax: 202-224-2354
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) [Ranking Member] Fax: 202-224-6747
3) Senate Judiciary Committee
Majority Fax: 202-224-9102
Minority Fax: 202-224-9516
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=sjudiciary
Arlen Specter (R-PA) [Chairman] Fax: 202-228-1229
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [Ranking Member] Fax: 202-224-3479
4) The Sponsors of Snowe-Dorgan
Sen Snowe, Olympia [] Fax: 202-224-1946
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] Fax: 202-228-2382
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] Fax: 202-228-0282
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] Fax: 202-224-1083
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] Fax: 202-224-1193
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] Fax: 202-224-6747
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] Fax: 202-224-3479
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] Fax: 202-228-4260
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] Fax: 202-228-2717
Here are the rest of the Commerce Committee members with fax
numbers:
John McCain (R-AZ) 202-228-2862
Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) 202-224-8594
Trent Lott (R-MS) 202-224-2262
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) 202-224-0776
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) 202-224-1946
Gordon Smith (R-OR) 202-228-3997
John Ensign (R-NV) 202-228-2193
George Allen (R-VA) 202-224-5432
John Sununu (R-NH) 202-228-4131
James DeMint (R-SC) 202-228-5143
David Vitter (R-LA) 202-228-5061
Minority:
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) 202-224-7665
John F. Kerry (D-MA) 202-224-8525
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-1193
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 202-228-2382
Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-228-2183
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-228-0514
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 202-228-4054
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-228-0012
Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202-228-0908
Here are the rest of the Judiciary Committee members with fax
numbers:
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) 202-224-6331
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) 202-224-6020
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-2207
Mike DeWine (R-OH) 202-224-6519
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 202-224-3149
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 202-224-3808
John Cornyn (R-TX) 202-228-2856
Sam Brownback (R-KS) 202-228-1265
Tom Coburn (R-OK) 202-224-6008
Minority:
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-2417
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 202-224-0139
Herb Kohl (D-WI) 202-224-9787
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-228-3954
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-2725
Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202-228-3027
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) 202-228-0400
My Cover Letter and other materials:
June 26, 2006
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building 508
Dirksen Senate Office Building 558
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
Dear Members of the Senate Commerce Committee:
Please see the attached proposed legislative language for
assuring "network neutrality."
This proposal has been endorsed by numerous technology,
telecommunications and legal professionals, including co-founder
of Apple Computer, Steve Wozniak, and one of the original
developers of the Internet's fundamental protocols, David Reed.
We designed this legislative approach to preserve the nature of
the Internet itself, while distinguishing it from the unique
types of networks being proposed. It incorporates a correct
definition for the term "network neutrality."
The right definition for "network neutrality" keeps the Internet
platform flexible and reliable for everybody. It cannot merely
talk about "applications, content or services" alone, but must
talk about how information is transmitted in "packets"
independently of how the information is being used. Any other
approach will end the flexibility of the Internet and in fact end
"network neutrality." S2917 comes the closest to meeting this
goal, but still requires language to be added referring to the
way information is transmitted in packets.
If you enact legislation that authorizes broadband providers to
break the principle of "network neutrality" as they purport to
provide the Internet -- and not follow the standards that
define the Internet -- the effects will be far-ranging and
disastrous.
The effects don't only relate to the offering of tiered
services. Most critically, the enacting of such policy
overrides the standards-making processes that establish the rules
assuring the sound design of the Internet. It not only impacts
areas of free speech and the potentials presently available to
Internet users, it affects the ability for the Internet to
support a wide variety of applications, and shapes the Internet
in such a way as to favor the designs offered by the broadband
providers, as opposed to innovative designs. It also affects the
ability for global Internet providers to interoperate.
We think that this legislative approach will be a revelation to
many in the discussion related to network neutrality, and we
think that it provides a way for all parties to come to
understanding of what the best policy is for innovation, freedom
and the appropriate treatment of the unprecedented type of public
medium for communications that the Internet has brought to us
all. Thank you for your kind and careful consideration.
Cordially,
Seth Johnson
Corresponding Secretary
New Yorkers for Fair Use
(212) 543-4266
Via: "rakesh@sarai.net"
Dear All
This is to invite you all to contribute references and links to compile
a comprehensive media bibliography, which will be published in
Medianagar 03. Whatever you have read, or came across about media can be
contributed. All the contributors will be given their due credit.
The only request to you is that please write a two line introduction of
the references, but keep the deadline ie 15 September 2006 in mind.
thanks & salam
rakesh
-
Rakesh Kumar Singh
Sarai-CSDS
29, Rajpur Road
Delhi-110054
Ph: 91 11 23960040
Fax: 91 11 2394 3450
web site: www.sarai.net
web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/
Via: "Vinay Aravind"
A copy of the decision is available here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-607.pdf
Via: "Vinay Aravind"
Anti-climax! But it would be interesting to read the dissents.
Originally available at
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-22T162754Z_01_N22381714_RTRIDST_0_COURT-LABCORP-PATENT.XML&rpc=66
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday
dismissed an appeal of a key patent case by medical testing company
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LH.N: Quote, Profile,
Research).
The high court declined to issue a ruling on the merits of the case, which
could have provided further guidance on the limits of what can be
patented.
LabCorp had argued that a patent it licensed from a small company called
Metabolite Laboratories Inc. was too vague because it claimed to cover a
basic scientific relationship.
The subject of the patent is a system for diagnosing a vitamin B12
deficiency by correlating it with elevated levels of a compound called
homocysteine.
A jury had found LabCorp liable for infringement of the patent, and the
decision was upheld by a federal appeals court.
In dismissing the case, the Supreme Court said it had been mistaken in
granting the appeal and agreeing to decide the case in the first place,
but did not give any further explanation.
Three of the justices dissented from the decision to dismiss the case,
saying the patent should have been ruled invalid.
Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the patent
amounted to "no more than an instruction to read some numbers in light of
medical knowledge."
Failing to decide on the merits of the case "threatens to leave the
medical profession subject to the restrictions imposed by this individual
patent and others of its kind," Breyer wrote. He was joined by Justices
John Paul Stevens and David Souter.
Via: Seth Johnson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] Senate Commerce Committee reprive for broadcast
flag, net neutrality decisions
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:19:10 -0400
From: David Farber
Reply-To: dave@farber.net
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ethan Ackerman
Date: June 22, 2006 4:12:38 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Senate Commerce Committee reprive for broadcast flag,
net
neutrality decisions
Greetings Dave,
Perhaps begining to realize just how big a bite it has taken on
sooo
many contentious issues related to telecom reform, the Senate
Commerce
Committee hearing scheduled for today just adjourned. The
Committee
had made it less than one-tenth of the way through its markup of
S.2686, the Senate's version of the telecom. reform bill.
The two concerns most dear to the technology community, 'net
neutrality' and 'broadcast flag' issues, weren't addressed, and
it
doesn't look like they will be until next week at the earliest.
Via: Seth Johnson
Urgent advisory on lobbying related to net neutrality today:
If you're talking with Congressional staff on this issue, the key
message is that you have to get language that talks about
packets, not "applications, content and services."
Snowe-Dorgan needs to be amended to talk about packets, not
applications, content and services. Presenting nondiscrimination
in those terms only authorizes policies at the application layer
to take control of the transport. There isn't any approach to
net neutrality that works, that talks about the application layer
-- whether you're doing it to prioritize or to treat equally or
nondiscriminate.
The proposal here shows one way to do that:
http://www.dpsproject.com
See the proposed language at
http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html , for an example that
says the behavior of the routers, transmitting packets
independently of the application layer, is what assures net
neutrality and all the characteristics of the IP transport.
It could be put in a few words, if you use the word "packets."
So that's the word:
"Packets," not "Application, content and services."
Get that in there. That will save the Internet.
You can use the proposal at http://www.dpsproject.com to
illustrate.
Seth
