[Commons-Law] relay

Via: "Hasit seth"

Hi Sonia,

This is an interesting viewpoint that there is some finite pool of
"Indian IQ" that generates "Indian IP". Suddenly, MNCs are coming to
make use of Indian IQ to create MNC IP. I don't even know what to call
this school of thought....

Thanks for pointing out the article. I still remember the fine
chinese meal you treated me to in Chelsea :-)

Regards,
Hasit

On 8/30/06, commons-law-request@sarai.net wrote:
> Send commons-law mailing list submissions to
> commons-law@sarai.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-law-request@sarai.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-law-owner@sarai.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. India and patents (Sonia Katyal)
> 2. John Mitchell on Culver City "EnterNot" Access (Seth Johnson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:06 -0400
> From: "Sonia Katyal"
> Subject: [Commons-Law] India and patents
> To: ,
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Friends:
>
> A great article on a very thought provoking issue, definitely worth thinking about....
>
> "Now that Cisco, Intel, General Electric, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and
> dozens of other companies have established Indian research centers, some
> fear that India's potential intellectual property will increasingly flow
> to multinational companies. "They're using Indian IQ to create IP for
> themselves," says Mashelkar. "We need to exploit our local IQ to
> generate IP for ourselves.""
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17339&ch=biztech
>
> warmly,
>
> skk
>
> Sonia K. Katyal
> Associate Professor of Law
> Fordham Law School
> 140 W. 62nd St.
> New York, NY 10023
> Send Email: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/bio.ihtml?id=766&template=jd
> Papers available at http://ssrn.com/author=115375
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:31:43 -0400
> From: Seth Johnson
> Subject: [Commons-Law] John Mitchell on Culver City "EnterNot" Access
> To: ecommerce@lists.essential.org, a2k@lists.essential.org,
> broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org,
> upd-discuss@lists.essential.org, commons-law@sarai.net
> Message-ID: <44F514AF.5EE6C888@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> > http://interactionlaw.com/wordpress/2006/08/28/culver-city-offers-free-wi-fi-enternot-access/
>
>
> Culver City Offers Free Wi-fi 'EnterNot' Access
>
> August 28th, 2006
>
> Culver City is offering public wi-fi access to the Internet
> (http://www.culvercitywifi.org/wifi_access.html) with two big
> caveats: It's not really the Internet, and to use it you agree to
> give up your civil rights.
>
> That's right. First, they offer Internet access, but you must
> agree to "limited" Internet access. And they don't mean limited
> hours of the day, limited locations, or a limited amount of time
> you can be on. No, when they say "limited," they mean that they
> will censor access to parts of the Internet. ("By using this free
> wireless network you are agreeing and acknowledging you have read
> and accepted these terms and conditions of use, and this wireless
> network provides only limited access to the Internet.") In other
> words, they do not offer Internet access at all. As the Dynamic
> Platform Standards Project points out so well
> (http://dpsproject.com/), anyone offering access to a "limited
> Internet" is engaged in false and deceptive advertising because a
> "limited Internet" is an oxymoron.
>
> Second, in order to gain the right to enjoy this free, public,
> non-Internet access, no matter what you read in the Bill of
> Rights (and the First Amendment, in particular) you must agree
> that the government may abridge your freedom of speech and you
> further agree that when it does so (as it promises to do), you
> will not exercise your right to sue for the violation of your
> First Amendment rights!
>
> I'm not making this up. Here's the fine print: "Further, [by
> using it] you are agreeing to waive any claims, including, but
> not limited to First Amendment claims, that may arise from the
> City and Agency's decision to block access to … matter and
> websites [of its choosing] through this free wireless network …."
>
> >From a legal standpoint, it is the same as if the Culver City
> public library were offering you free access to newspapers, but
> was first clipping out the articles it didn't like and making you
> agree not to sue for censorship if you wanted to read what was
> left.
>
> It's starting to look like 1984. "Freedom" means freedom to give
> up your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness if you want to have free access to the government's
> Internet - or "EnterNot," as the Culver City leadership might
> call it. I'm a big fan of free, public Internet access, but
> without the Doublespeak.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law@sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
>
> End of commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19
> *******************************************
>

No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.