nexa

Download

By thread

nexa@server-nexa.polito.it

January 2010

38 participants
99 messages

Data.gov.uk e' online

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://blog.okfn.org/2010/01/21/datagovuk-goes-public-and-its-using-ckan/ jc

Jan. 21, 2010

Google, China, and the future of freedom on the global Internet

by bernardo parrella

Domani giovedi' 21, 9:30am EST si svolgera' un panel sulla questione Cina-Google e il futuro delle liberta' online con Rebecca McKinnon (co-fondatrice di Global Voices), Evgeny Morozov (Foreign Policy Magazine), Jim Fallows (The Atlantic Monthly), Tim Wu (Law Columbia School, Slate) e Alec Ross (Sec. Clinton's special adviser) alla New America Foundation di Washington D.C. in collaborazione con la rivista online Slate Poco prima, in altra sede, e' previsto un intervento di Hillary Clinton sempre sulla questione Google-Cina e dintorni Interessante post di Rebecca McKinnon al riguardo: http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2010/01/how-not-to-save-the-in… Dettagli e live video feed dell'evento: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/authority_meet_technology

Jan. 20, 2010

R: R: proprietà intellettuale sul prodotto industriale

by Marco Ricolfi

Caro Angelo, grazie del tuo e-mail. Quanto al master che dirigo, e di cui ho la responsabilità scientifica, potrà interessarti venire ad assistere alle lezioni, specie quelle sui brevetti che ti interessano; e sono sicuro che avrai sorprese se parti dallassunto che meritino il giudizio che riservi alle iniziative WIPO. A me invece interessa sapere se hai evidenze empiriche su quella che tu consideri la grande truffa dellallargamento delle regole sui farmaci salva vita, che è stata fortemente voluta dai paesi in via di sviluppo. E infatti venuto il momento non per Nexa, peraltro per fare un bilancio su questo argomento. Hai invece ragione di insistere sulla rilevanza del tema dei brevetti per la rete; e precisamente sotto i due profili che ti indichi. Di uno mi sono occupato anchio, forse un po incidentalmente, come mostra il testo della conferenza che ho tenuto ad Ottobre a Ginevra nellambito del Master e che riproduco qui sotto. Il brevetto è stato pensato per leconomia classica; oggi la rete apre possibilità di cooperazione per le quali il brevetto rischia di divenire un ostacolo invece che un incentivo. Dellaltro che definirei più che i brevetti su internet i brevetti sugli strumenti di comunicazione e condivisione del sapere in forma digitale, ivi incluso lo strumento di internet, già ci occupiamo, occupandoci di brevetti di software; e lattenzione potrebbe (e forse dovrebbe, risorse permettendo) estendersi a brevetti su protocolli e formati, come già segnalato da Juan Carlos. Condivido anche lidea di JC secondo cui il tema dellinteroperabilità merita di essere particolarmente sviluppato, essendo del resto al centro della tesi di dottorato del nostro managing director Federico Morando. Mettendo insieme questi due pezzi, risulta un quadro non diverso da quello cui dirigono le tue osservazioni. Grazie dunque per lo stimolo, che insieme con Juan Carlos non lasceremo cadere, nei limiti delle risorse e del tempo a disposizione. Ma comunque tenendo conto dellesigenza di rifocalizzare lattenzione anche su temi importanti come quelli che tu segnali. m. 20/01/2010 Genevatex Genetic Engineering: Where is the Innovation?* Summary: § 1. Which Innovation? § 2. Patent law and genetic engineering. § 3. The tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons. § 4. Two emerging paradigms: contractually reconstructed commons and open source biotechnology. § 5. Concluding remarks. § 1. Which Innovation? There is a certain ambiguity in the title of the presentation which was allotted to me. One possible way to read the question Where is the Innovation? is to ask whether the requirement for patentability which in the US legal system is referred as non obviousness and in Europe as inventive step is in some way different in the field of genetic engineering as opposed to general patent law. This would certainly be an interesting issue to research. Indeed, it is arguable that in this regard genetic engineering is a pretty special case: just to mention the first differences which occur to me, the standard used in this area is lower than the one used in more traditional fields, such as mechanics, chemistry and pharmaceuticals; when it comes to the field of biotech, the notion of person skilled in the art, against which the inventiveness of each invention is tested, is a specialized one; and so on. There are even more interesting ways to read the question in the title, however. The title might refer either to the identification of the genetic engineering areas in which innovation would appear most promising; or even to the issue whether the legal rules governing the protection of genetic engineering research and investment should they themselves be innovated, that is adapted or changed. I find this perspective even more challenging than the one I mentioned at the outset, so that I chose to explore it rather than elaborating on the notion of inventive step. I must also add that, being a lawyer rather than a scientist or a technologist, I will mainly look at the second strand of the second issue, asking what is the legal innovation to be expected in this field, rather than trying to fathom what the technological innovation will be. I am afraid, however, that as a lawyer I cannot totally avoid the necessity of also dealing, if only to a certain extent, with the first strand of the same question. The nature of the legal profession is such that lawyers cannot stand totally separate from the non-legal issues to which they apply their analytical skills; and I am sure that the participants in this eight edition of the Turin-WIPO LL. M. program will by now have become acutely aware that in IP law the interpenetration of technical aspect and legal rules is even more advanced than in other areas of the law. Taking this to account, in the final part of my presentation (at § 5) I will ask whether there is any relationship between proposed changes concerning the legal rules and changes underway in the actual technological reality of genetic engineering research and development. § 2. Patent law and genetic engineering. Now, concerning the question whether changes are required in the legal protection of genetic engineering innovation, it would appear that the question really has two sides to it. The first one is to ask whether we do have empirical evidence confirming the hypothesis, sometimes described with reference to the notion of the tragedy of the anticommons, that protection of genetic engineering innovation via patent law does in fact entail an increase in transaction costs and encourages opportunistic and strategic behaviour. The second one is to ask whether there are mechanisms which conceivably could be adopted to foster research and innovation in the field of genetic engineering which are promising enough and sufficiently tested to warrant consideration as alternatives to patent protection or possibly as complements to it. A few words may be in place to elucidate the first question. At some point in the late Seventies or in the early Eighties of last century biotechnology emerged as a revolutionary technological approach based on i. the identification of the DNA sequences responsible for certain traits of living organism, e.g. coding for a protein making the plant resistant to salinity; and ii. the cutting and pasting of the relevant sequence from an original living organism to the receiving cell of a different target organism. (That the cutting of the DNA sequence usually took place through so called restriction enzymes and that its splicing on the receiving cell usually was effected by means of a virus are details which even today may sound extraordinary to the non-specialist but in the present context do not seem to have particular implications). In many ways, this kind of innovation was very different from the innovation we had been accustomed to through the previous centuries and decades, in areas such as mechanics first, chemistry and pharmaceuticals later. This discontinuity between prior forms of innovation and biotechnology called in question the advisability of pouring new wine in old bottles by protecting biotech innovation through patent laws; nevertheless the various legal systems of advanced economies came more or less in unison to the conclusion that patent protection was the most appropriate tool to provide an incentive for the creation and dissemination of a technological innovation in general and that this applied also to biotech innovation. In fact, some jurisdictions incorporated biotech into patent laws by means of case law; others went all the way and changed patent rules to specifically accommodate biotechnological innovation. In the end the outcome was the same: currently the job of providing the appropriate incentive to originate, disclose, and disseminate biotech innovation lays with patent laws in most of the advanced economies. § 3. The tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons. When the adoption of the EU Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was discussed, I was in the camp of the sceptics. Today, I might recollect some of the doubts I then harboured; for the present purposes I find it more relevant, however, to look at the kind of critique to patent protection of biotech innovation which currently is described as the anticommons argument. We may begin to understand what the anticommons argument means by considering it turns on its head the theory of the tragedy of the commons, originally advocated by an important article written in the early Sixties by a scientist, Garrett Hardin. In the Middle Ages, he had remarked, stretches of land held in common by the local population were gradually depleted, as they were overgrazed (too much cattle over the same fields) and deforested (too much wood extraction from the communal woods). In his account, an optimal allocation was restored by enclosures such as the ones which took place in Sixteenth Century England: as soon as individual owners obtained undivided title over the land, depletion stopped. An individual owner would not disregard the long term implications of depletion, as he himself would bear all the future costs of inefficient use; while, as long as short term benefits were reaped by the commoners individually while the corresponding costs were born by the whole community, the same long term costs were disregarded. A similar situation applied to fisheries, which were running and indeed still are running, in spite of quotas the risk of depletion of stock as each fishing fleet ignores the long term implications of overfishing. In this perspective, the commons, appealing as they may sound to the romantics and to the left leaning, in reality are a tragedy; their opposite number, property rights, are efficient. You may wonder what this all has to do with biotech patents. The connection may become a bit clearer when I mention that about in the same years one of the most powerful minds behind the Law and Economics movement, professor Ronald Coase, was bent on proving that, by protecting the resource with a property right, the law combines the static efficiency Garret Hardin was talking about with dynamic efficiency, as it enables market transactions whereby the resource may move to its highest valued use. From there the argument migrated to intellectual property rights: also protection of IPRs by means of property rights contributes to the optimal allocation of resources; therefore biotechnological innovation too should be protected by means of patent rights. Fundamental research concerning the double helix may well have originated within the commons of the public, academic research; but when it came to reaping the fruits of the tree of knowledge, property rights, not the commons, would be the most appropriate regime. Now, this line of argument is, as I was saying, literally turned on its head by those scholars who have argued that protecting innovation by means of property rights may lead to a tragedy opposite and symmetrical to the one elucidated by Garrett Hardin, the tragedy of the anticommons; and that this may specially be the case in novel fields like digital technology and indeed genetic engineering. According to this viewpoint, while traditionally basic scientific research in agriculture and medicine had for a long time been open and the information resources widely shared by the scientific community, propertization of research outcomes by the grant of patents on agricultural and medical innovation as initiated in the late Seventies or early Eighties must be seen as apt to build up barriers to the access ad reuse of information and of information-carrying assets and is thus liable to endanger the enormous benefits which scientific cooperation entails. Let us examine more closely the reasons which usually are given to account for the emergence of the phenomenon described as the tragedy of the anticommons and for the outcomes which are said to derive from it. The first reason resides in the nature of technological innovation in genetic engineering: the originally extended trajectory which leads from the scientific enterprise to its commercial application has in the last decades to a large extent collapsed and shrunk. The second reason resides in the fact that this novel type of technical innovation exactly as it is the case in connection with digital technology tends to bear the know-how which makes it valuable on its face. Both aspects can be simultaneously illustrated by an example drawn from the here relevant field of genetic engineering. The difficult thing in devising an emergency treatment for a heart attack based on tissue plasminogen activator (TPA), a known substance produced by the body to help the heart to revascularize in the first hours after the event, was to identify the DNA sequence which codes for this protein with a view to synthetically producing the protein itself and administering it to early stage patients. Once the TPA sequence is identified, it becomes quite easy to synthesize the desired amount of this protein for treatment of heart attacks; in turn the scientific knowledge obtained in the sequencing is immediately available to other entities which may wish to manufacture and sell the protein. Thus, theoretical knowledge of the sequence entails as a matter of course ease of manufacture of the protein for which it codes; and this activity may be replicated by any entity possessing the knowledge of the sequence, without the efforts, such as the costs of reverse engineering, usually associated with imitation of products available on the market. Now, while it is quite predictable that, in such a context, no institution would engage in investment unless it can obtain a legal monopoly on its research outputs, exactly as posited by the supporters of patent protection, several commentators have also noted that an analysis of the costs and benefits of patent protection for genetic engineering should never forget that, as a result of the just illustrated features, propertization may also have severely adverse impact upstream and downstream on the innovation process. Upstream the very possibility of obtaining property rights over research outcomes suggests to all the players that it is advisable for them to avoid organizational arrangements which entail sharing of information with third parties. Therefore, if the grant of a patent is possible, all interim steps, including materials obtained in the preliminary stages of a research trial or information pertaining thereto tend not to cross the door of the laboratory, to avoid making disclosures which may prevent patentability and give leads to potential competitors. Even presentation of ongoing research at academic meetings and publication of research findings before patent filings recede for exactly the same reasons. Exchanges may in to some extent continue, e.g. in terms of material transfer agreements; but then they tend to be governed by restrictive terms, intended to reserve the transferor entitlements over downstream innovation. In turn, the process may trigger domino effects: any initial move by one of the players to obtain exclusive right and to leverage them to secure contractual privileges is bound to trigger defensive reactions by similarly situated players. A similar analysis applies to downstream outcomes. Research outputs tend to be complementary in nature. Marketable end products may incorporate a number of contributions, which may be a method of sequencing, a research tool, a DNA sequence. To the extent complementary items are covered by separate property rights and these belong to different entities, a powerful incentive is given to each player to hold out contributing her asset as a bargaining chip to extract the highest possible share of downstream profits to be derived from marketable end products. An increasing number of commentators have therefore expressed fears that patent protection, when applied to genetic engineering innovation, may entail costs greater than the expected benefits. While in principle property rights are seen as an efficient tool to induce innovation and enhance market based exchanges over it, it is often feared that the specificity of some areas, including biomedical research and biotech, may lead to the adoption of strategic behaviour and to an unacceptable increase of transaction costs. § 4. Two emerging paradigms: contractually reconstructed commons and open source biotechnology. I do not know whether the anticommons argument is true or not. Actually, this is a matter of empirical evidence rather than of pure theory, even though of course theory may help us to make educated guesses and even to build parameters and benchmarks against which to test the hypothesis. I will therefore come back to say something about the empirical evidence as to the failure or success of the current regime in a short while. For the moment, I would rather like to point out that it may be of some significance that in the last decade we witnessed to the emergence of paradigms which in many ways are radically different from patent law and which may be described for the sake of convenience as contractually reconstructed commons and open source biotechnology. Let me say just a few words about each. The first one, i.e. the proposed contractually reconstructed commons paradigm, recognizes the benefits which can accrue if innovators are granted property rights over their research contributions and assets; but advocates contractual arrangements which may ex ante take care of the risk that players in the research community may engage in strategic behavior of the kind described by anticommons theory. A variety of mechanisms is proposed, depending on the specific technological sector to which the arrangements are to apply, which may from case to case be drugs discovery or microbial research. There are recurring features in the design however, among which I should mention the adoption by the different players of standard contractual forms, which contemplate non-exclusive use and access to information resources and research inputs that either are covered by some form of exclusive rights or are de facto in exclusive possession of one of the parties; extensive confidentiality agreements limiting access by third parties to the resource; a dichotomy between non commercial, research uses, for all purposes free and commercial uses, subject to a contractual liability rule whereby the party first bringing to the market a commercially valuable end-product is enabled to do so subject to a duty of compensation of the provider of the different inputs which may go into the end product in accordance with a predetermined scale of royalties. These are complex concepts, which, I submit, we may start to understand better if we think of them by analogy to well known organizational paradigms in IP such as patent pools and even collective management organizations in the field of copyright. I must however confess that I do have even more difficulties in elucidating the open source biotechnology proposal, as I cannot fully understand how this concept can work in the absence of legislative changes. The basic notion derives from open source software or, to be more specific, from the mechanism of copyleft on which open source licenses, including the GPL, are based. Under current copyright laws, software is protected and so are all additions to it which have a minimum of significance. It is well possible for the initiators of a project, which usually form a community, to provide for the initial body of code making it available both in source and object code (hence the designation as open source software) and release it on the condition that the copyright license granted to any subsequent user is subject to compliance with a set of conditions, including the so called copyleft clause, which requires the licensee to make all his additions available under the same open access conditions to all subsequent users. Much has been written about this viral feature in software licenses, whereby the original condition imposed by the first licensor to the first licensees is propagated by the latter downstream, exactly as a virus would do, to cover each and all pieces of software building on the basis of the initial chunks of programming. Therefore for present purposes I do not need to add much, except to highlight that the whole mechanism is built on the solid foundation of copyright protection. If subsequent licensees do not abide by the copyleft clause, they are plain infringers; therefore it is copyright protection which makes sure that downstream innovation is kept open and is not enclosed by downstream innovators. This solution originates in the digital environment, where lawmakers, about three decades ago, saw fit to innovate and to adopt a rule whereby software programs are protected by copyright. I am not yet able to see how this approach can be extended to biotechnology, however. I am aware, of course within the limits accessible to a lawyer and, I should add, to an old timer who has not yet had much time to devote to understanding the technological evolution that there are new fields as the one referred to as synthetic biology; that these are a fertile ground for the emergence of distributed collective cooperation efforts, in which the innovation does not resemble the classical cherry on the pie which was the original genetic engineering innovation and may be analogized to having the different parties constructing the bricks, i.e. the building blocks which go into the larger blueprint agreed among them. What I miss is to see how there the individual building blocks may enjoy some legal protection. Neither patent nor copyright would seem to fit here; the first one because, even if we were to admit that all the requirements for patent protection are met, the costs and time of patenting would be devastating for any project; the latter one, because frankly I do not see any creative work as yet in the bricks, at least until lawmakers do not step in and choose to indicate otherwise, as they did when they legislated on copyright protection of software. But then, if the individual blocks are not IP protected, it would seem to me that the very basis for copyleft licensing is missing. My provisional conclusion therefore is that open source biotechnology still misses a legislative starting point. § 5. Concluding remarks. Is there any relationship between the emergence of the two paradigms I just referred to and the difficulties allegedly faced by traditional patent law in providing an appropriate regime for genetic engineering innovation? Quite frankly, I must say that I do not know and, even more frankly, that I would not be the one to know. What I can do is to make a few guesses, for what they may be worth. The first one is that it would appear to me that one of the most fundamental reasons for the emergence of the two innovative paradigms I dealt with in § 4 is to be found in the changes which the web is undergoing. The web no longer is just a vast library; it has in the meantime become a user driven collaborative workplace. It therefore stands to reason that the possibility of myriad cooperative research enterprises in the field of biotechnology, using the web as an instrument to bring together vast data sets accumulated by the different players, has in the meantime emerged and that this distributed collective intelligence is now looking for sets of rules which may provide a finely balanced mechanism to optimize cooperation and cooperation results. Both contractually reconstructed commons and open source biotechnology would appear to be plausible candidates. Am I therefore saying that what accounts for the emergence of these two paradigms is the success of the web, rather than the putative failure of patent law in governing biotech innovation? Not quite. In fact, it would indeed appear, at least to my naïve eyes, that there are signs which show that indeed the model on which much of the initial successes in genetic engineering was based are no longer functioning. The number of blockbuster drugs is dramatically declining; the number of drugs in the pipelines is decreasing. Just a few years ago the future of bioinformatics was all the rage; today it would appear that the promises of what is referred to as High-Throughput-Screening have not come true if not to a very small extent. Therefore, we cannot rule out that the story according to which in the first years of genetic engineering our patent-driven research has been able to reap the lower hanging fruits of the tree of knowledge is correct after all. It may also well be that, to reach the fruits which hang from the higher branches, the effort of a given, specific laboratory alone is no longer sufficient; and that a cooperative effort, among firms and between firms and public research institutions and possibly even with regulatory authorities. After all it appears that gene expression is not confined to the standard linear model of one gene-one protein; but is a complex non linear process involving not just the coding of genes for individual proteins (the cDNA segments), but also the DNA involved in gene regulation and organization; I do not know whether this the case, for the simple reason that I possess neither the necessary empirical data nor the required skills to assess them. What I know is that, if this is the case, the role of cooperative arrangements will increase; but I also expect that these arrangements will not replace IPRs but will build on patent protection while trying to take care ex ante of several of the problems highlighted by the scholars who have described the dangers associated with the tragedy of the anticommons. * This draft paper is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) On the first issue see among others R.P. MERGES, One Hundred Years of Solicitude. Intellectual Property Law, 1900-2000, in 88 Cal. L. Rev., 2000, 2189 ff., 2224 ff.; on the second one S.J.R. BOSTYN, Enabling Biotechnological Inventions in Europe and the United States. A study of the patentability of proteins and DNA sequences with special emphasis on the disclosure requirement, European Patent Office, München, 2001, 72 ff. Throughout this paper I shall use biotechnology and genetic engineering as equivalents. The corresponding notion was originally introduced into the debate by M.A. HELLER, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, in 111 Harvard Law Review, 1998, 111 ff. and M.A. HELLER-R.S. EISENBERG, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, in Science 280, 1998, 698-701 and in F.H. MILLER ed., Rights and Resources, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 2003, 401-404. An excellent treatment is in E. BERTACCHINI, Contractually Constructed Research Commons: a Critical Economic Appraisal, ##. Wonderfully illustrated by J.H. REICHMAN, Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, in 94 Columbia L. Rev., 1994, 2432 ff. For a thorough discussion of the costs and benefits of patenting, including a discussion of the different incentives (to generate innovation, to disclose it and to disseminate it before and after the term of the patent), also with specific reference to special industries such as biotech see R. MAZZOLENI, R. NELSON, Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents, in XXXII Journal of Economic Issues, 1998, 1031 ff. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, in 447 U.S. 303 (1980). Directive No 98/44 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, in OJ 2000, L 213, 13 ff. But see Art. 27(3)(b) of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, LEGAL INSTRUMENTSRESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND vol. 3, 1869 U.N.T.S., 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement]. See my La proposta di direttiva del Consiglio sulla protezione giuridica delle invenzioni biotecnologiche, in Giur. Comm., 1991, I, 918 ff. and Bioethics Markets and Morals: The Case of Biotechnological Patents, in a cura di C.M. Mazzoni A Legal Framework for Bioethics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998, 131 ff. and for commentary after the enactment of Directive 98/44 Biotechnology, Patents and Epistemic Approaches, in The journal of Biolaw and Business, Special Supplement, 2002, 77-90. For a classical account of this position see H. DEMSETZ, Toward a Theory of Property Rights, in American Economic Review, 1967, 347 ff. See R. COASE, The Problem of Social Cost, in 3 Journal of Law & Economics, 1960, 1 ff. For a brilliant treatment see R.P. MERGES, Of Property Rules, Coase and Intellectual Property Law, in 94 Colum. L. Rev., 1994, 2655 ff. An offspring of this conception was the adoption of rules providing incentives to patenting by Universities, such as the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, Publ. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.A. §§ 200-212 (2000)), for an assessment of which see A. K. RAI & R.S. EISENBERG, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, in 66 Law & Contemp. Probs., 2003, 289 ff. and R.R. NELSON, Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities, in IPQ 2001, 1 ff. G.B. DINWOODIE & R. COOPER DREYFUSS, International Intellectual Property Law and the Public Domain of Science, in 7 Journal of Int. Ec. Law 2004, 431 ff., 433 and, in specific connection with the process of extension of protectable subject matter to disembodied knowledge, H. ULLRICH, Expansionist Intellectual Property and Reductionist Competition Rules, in 7 Journal of Int. Ec. Law 2004, 401 ff. As shown in the case not only of genetic engineering but also of plant varieties, semiconductor chips and data bases. For a full treatment of this line of thought see the abundant work of Jerome H. Reichman, from Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, above at note # to The Globalization of Private Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods, in 7 Journal of Int. Ec. Law, 2004, 279 (written with Keith E. Maskus). E. BERTACCHINI, Contractually Constructed Research Commons: a Critical Economic Appraisal, quoted above at note #, E. BERTACCHINI, Contractually Constructed Research Commons: a Critical Economic Appraisal, quoted above at note #, § 2. M.A. HELLER-R.S. EISENBERG, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, above at note #. In this connection see E. BERTACCHINI, Contractually Constructed Research Commons: a Critical Economic Appraisal, quoted above at note #, § 3.1. The approach originally advocated by J. H. REICHMAN & P. UHLIR, A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment, in 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 2003, 315 ff. has been refined and adapted to a number of specific contexts by A.K. RAI-J.H. REICHMAN-P.F. UHLIR-C. CROSSMAN, Pathways Across the Valley of Death: Novel Intellectual Property Strategies for Accelerated Drug Discovery, in VIII Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 2008, 1 ff. (in connection with drug discovery) and J.H. REICHMAN-T. DEDEURWAERDERE-P.F. UHLIR, Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Strategies for Accessing, Managing and Using Essential Public Knowledge, unpublished presentation to the Turin Communia Conference of June 26, 2009 (in connection with microbial collections). Except to the extent required by confidentiality agreements; in connection with publications see the balancing suggested by #. Indeed, the notion of contracting into liability advocated by R.P. MERGES, Contracting Into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organisations, in 84 Cal. L. Rev., 1996, 1293 ff. seems to emerge in several crucial points of the proposals concerning contractually reconstructed commons. I have not yet read the work by B. Demil & X. Lecoq, Neither market nor hierarchy nor network: the emergence of bazaar governance, in 27 Organization studies 2006, 1447-1466 and by Janet Hope, Biobazaar. The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology, Harvard University Press, 2008, which might contain replies to the questions indicated below. On which see I.V. HEFFAN, Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age, in 49 Stanford Law Rev. 1997, 1487 ss. C. PATTERSON, Copyright Misuse and Modified Copyleft: New Solutions to the Challenges of Internet Standardization, in 98 Michigan Law Review, 2000, 1351 ff. See Wikipedia, item Synthetic biology, last visited August 21, 2009. A similar view is expressed by A. RAI & J. BOYLE, Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain and the Commons, in Plos Biology March 2007, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 389-393, at 391. Which would seem a dubious proposition to begin with because no component does have utility or, in European parlance, industrial application and therefore it also is very difficult to speak of originality. The point is made, in a slightly different context (astronomy) by L. LESSIG, Remix. Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, The Penguin Press, 2008, 170. As related by A.K. RAI-J.H. REICHMAN-P.F. UHLIR-C. CROSSMAN, Pathways Across the Valley of Death, above at note #, 3, an average of only three drugs that act on novel targets, i.e. proteins implicated in disease pathways, have reached the market in recent years. On the features of high throughput screening of molecule libraries against assays containing target proteins to identify promising compounds which may lead to patentable drugs see A.K. RAI-J.H. REICHMAN-P.F. UHLIR-C. CROSSMAN, Pathways Across the Valley of Death, above at note #, 7. For a thoughtful comment on this possibility see A. JACK, Remedy for a malady, Financial Times August 15-16, 2009, page 8. Marco Ricolfi Torino Law School -----Messaggio originale----- Da: meo [mailto:meo@polito.it] Inviato: mercoledì 13 gennaio 2010 12.25 A: Marco Ricolfi Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: R: [nexa] proprietà intellettuale sul prodotto industriale Caro Marco, non entro nel merito della prima parte del tuo mail perchè proprio di questo vorrei parlare in Nexa. Peraltro, tu sai benissimo cosa pensano i fanatici estremisti come me di WIPO e delle sue iniziative, per non parlare di quella che consideriamo la grande truffa dell' "allargamento delle regole sui farmaci salva vita". Entro invece sul merito della "competenza dell'argomento". Perchè il prodotto artistico rientra e quello industriale no? Solo perchè sembra più facile diffondere il primo via Rete? Ma la Rete è ormai lo strumento principale per la diffusione del sapere scientifico che poi diventa brevetto. Per non parlare delle molte migliaia di brevetti su Internet (c'è una causa legale nella quale si sostiene che tutta l'attività della Rete è una violazione di brevetti precedenti) e dei prodotti proprietari che la Rete ospita, in contrapposizione con i suoi standard aperti. Comunque, se i due direttori concordano, ritiro la mia richiesta, senza far perdere tempo ad altri. Scusa ancora la mia assenza alla riunione di oggi che mi pare molto importante. Raf On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:20:43 +0100, "Marco Ricolfi" <marco.ricolfi(a)studiotosetto.it> wrote: > Caro Raffaele, > peccato non averti con noi. Rispetto al tema. Condivido - come, penso, > anche Juan Carlos - la tua affermazione che "la proprietà > intellettuale industriale è un freno allo sviluppo, fattore di > disuguaglianze fra imprese grandi e piccole, fra paesi forti e deboli, > e ragione della morte di decine > di milioni di uomini, ogni > anno, come illustrato da Medici senza Frontiere". > Penso che si possa dire che pochi come noi, a Torino, abbiano dato un > contributo sul tema. Pensa che in 8 anni di Master sulla proprietà > intellettuale abbiamo lavorato su questo tema; che ci abbiamo formato più > di > 200 candidati, più della metà dei quali proviene dai paesi in via di > sviluppo; e che, siccome moltissimi - decine - di questi sono delegati dei > loro governi nelle istituzioni internazionali, abbiamo contribuito > agli sviluppi in questo settore. La nostra Vanessa Lowenstein è stata > tra le prima a lavorare alla Development Agenda del WIPO (una serie di iniziative > richieste dai paesi in via di sviluppo per contrastare la deriva > iper-protezionista della proprietà intellettuale); e l'allargamento delle > regole sui farmaci salva vita ci ha visto particolarmente attivi. > Occorre però anche rispettare un principio di competenza e di > specializzazione delle competenze. Da questo punto di vista, quello > che non > è facile capire è come questo tema - prioritario - trovi collocazione > in un centro che si occupa della rete internet, salvo che per il > profilo del brevetto di software, sul quale abbiamo posizioni chiare e > costanti (nel senso che va, in linea generale, evitato e combattuto). > Possiamo ritornare quando vuoi sul tema. Sulla base però di > un'argomentazione almeno ipotetica della rilevanza ai fini di una > riflessione sistematica specificamente riferita alla rete. Dico bene, Juan > Carlos? > m. > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it > [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Angelo > Raffaele Meo > Inviato: lunedì 11 gennaio 2010 16.37 > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Oggetto: [nexa] proprietà intellettuale sul prodotto industriale > > Carissimi, > desidero scusare la mia assenza all'incontro Nexa previsto > per mercoledì 13. Come nel caso dei precedenti mercoledì, debbo > partecipare alla seduta mensile dell'Accademia delle Scienze, ove, > tra l'altro, dobbiamo discutere di un convegno sulla ricerca > industriale che intendiamo > organizzare. > Avanzo comunque una richiesta relativa alla roadmap 2010. Mi > piacerebbe, come anticipai in un incontro lontano, che Nexa affrontasse > anche la questione della proprietà intellettuale sui prodotti industriali > e > dei brevetti in particolare. Quel giorno Marco (Ricolfi, non Ciurcina) mi > rispose che quella questione non rientrava negli obiettivi di Nexa e oggi, > in un incontro privato, Juan Carlos mi ha ribadito la posizione di Marco. > Se questa è la posizione di tutti, accetto disciplinatamente la > decisione collegiale. Tuttavia, mi sia consentito ricordare l'opinione di > un > numero rapidamente crescente di studiosi, secondo la quale la > questione della proprietà intellettuale sul prodotto industriale è > molto più importante della questione della proprietà sul prodotto > artistico, perchè > la > proprietà intellettuale industriale è un freno allo sviluppo, fattore > di disuguaglianze fra imprese grandi e piccole, fra paesi forti e > deboli, e ragione della morte di decine di milioni di uomini, ogni > anno, come illustrato da Medici senza Frontiere. > Grazie per l'attenzione. Colgo l'occasione per associarmi alle > congratulazioni di Marco R. a Marco C. > Raf > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 20, 2010

Arriva "La fine del copyright"

by bernardo parrella

segnalo la fresca uscita di un volume agile e utile: La fine del copyright - Come creare un mercato culturale aperto a tutti di Joost Smiers e Marieke van Schijndel 168 pg, 12 euro, Stampa Alternativa (CC by 3.0) questa la scheda del testo cartaceo sul sito SA: http://www.stampalternativa.it/libri/978-88-6222-108-5/joost-smiers-/la-fin… da qui si puo' scaricare il pdf integrale: http://www.stampalternativa.it/liberacultura/?p=201 e questo il retrocopertina: Quando sono pochi conglomerati internazionali a controllare saldamente il bene comune della comunicazione e della produzione culturale, è a rischio la democrazia stessa. La libertà di comunicare che spetta a ciascuno di noi e il diritto individuale di partecipare alla vita culturale della propria comunità (come sancito nella Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Umani) non può non indebolirsi davanti al diritto esclusivo assegnato dall'odierno copyright a un pugno di manager e investitori, guidati unicamente dai propri interessi ideologici ed economici. È invece necessario e possibile creare un level playing field, un terreno di gioco dalle pari opportunità, un mercato culturale aperto a 'creativi', ricercatori e imprenditori di ogni livello, dai singoli individui alle aziende Internet. Soltanto accettando con serenità l'inevitabile morte del copyright per come lo conosciamo e ridisegnando le norme internazionali sul diritto d'autore alla luce degli odierni (e futuri) scenari tecnologici sarà possibile dare concretezza alla diversità e al pluralismo che caratterizano una società ecletticamente aperta e democratica, dove le opportunità economiche e culturali vengano create e distribuite su base paritaria.

Jan. 20, 2010

R: Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.

by Blengino

Se posso dire, il problema vero è che, se ci si attiene al dato normativo, alcuni dei più noti servizi del web 2.0 sono necessariamente "fuorilegge". Penso ovviamente al problema dei dati raccolti presso i terzi ovvero ai trattamenti dei contenuti degli utenti. La dichiarazione di MS mi pare una sortita da public policy su di un tema certamente importante (la data retentions) ma non così centrale. Poiché poi la normativa a tutela dei dati inizia ad esser utilizzata come testa di ponte per tratteggiare posizioni di garanzia degli ISP sui contenuti (vedi caso google-vividown), in contrasto con la 70/03, e nel contempo i dati degli utenti sono il conio con cui si pagano i servizi "gratuiti" è evidente che in futuro ne vedremo delle belle. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Andrea Glorioso Inviato: mercoledì 20 gennaio 2010 13.03 A: Stefano Quintarelli Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators. On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:46:57PM +0100, Stefano Quintarelli wrote: > Beh, c'e' il Safe Harbor. Il "Safe Harbor", cosi` come le "Binding Corporate Rules", sono dei meccanismi sicuramente utili per cercare di ovviare al problema dei meccanismi "globali/locali" a cui ho accennato nella mia email. Da quel che conosco e capisco io del primo meccanismo, pero`, l'effettiva durata di conservazione dei dati non e` oggetto della "self-certification" di Google Inc. pressa la FTC statunitense. Questo, oltre al fatto che l'opinione del WP29 non e` vincolante, rende le decisioni di Google, Microsoft o chi altri interpretabili piu` sotto la luce delle dinamiche di mercato (e della percezione dei consumatori) che non di una mera applicazione del diritto vigente. > io penso che le norme sulla privacy ed il safe harbor diverranno nel > 2010 un argomento chiave delle discussioni tra USA ed Europa per quanto > riguarda l'online, andando a toccare proprio gl iinteressi degli > oepratori economici. Anche i politici che fino a ieri criticavano le > norme sulla privacy si "convertiranno", non per convinzione ma per > utilita', e contribuiranno a miglioraer l apercezione sui consumatori. Sottoscrivo. Ricordo anche che l'entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona introduce una nuova base legale per quanto riguarda la protezione della privacy e dei dati personali (art. 16 del Trattato dell'Unione Europea e Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell'Unione Europea) il che certamente comportera` un maggior attivismo, a livello europeo, sull'argomento - il che a sua volta avra` senz'altro degli effetti di non poco conto sulle relazione tra EU, USA e altri stati. Ciao! -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 20, 2010

SAVE THE DATE: 17 febbraio incontro su Capo VI del Codice Amm. Digitale

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Buongiorno a tutti, mercoledi' 17 febbraio 2010 alle ore 17 in corso Trento 21 (Torino) il Centro NEXA su Internet & Società organizza un incontro dedicato al Capo VI del Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale, "SVILUPPO, ACQUISIZIONE E RIUSO DI SISTEMI INFORMATICI NELLE PUBBLICHE AMMINISTRAZIONI" (art. 67-70). L'incontro costituisce il passo preliminare per l'attivazione di una ricerca sul tema e sara' aperto da due interventi: - prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo, in qualita' di presidente della Commissione per il software a codice sorgente aperto nella Pubblica Amministrazione creata dal Ministro Stanca, che spieghera', oltre al resto, la genesi delle norme in esame; - avv. Marco Ciurcina, esperto giurista, che iniziera' presentando un'analisi delle norme e della loro applicazione e che concludera' proponendo l'outline di una possibile ricerca sul tema. Saranno invitati anche altri esperti del settore. Seguira' discussione. La partecipazione all'incontro e' libera. Cordiali saluti, juan carlos de martin [1] Decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005, n. 82 pubblicato in G.U. del 16 maggio 2005, n. 112 - S.O. n. 93 "Codice dell'amministrazione digitale" aggiornato dal D.Lgs. n. 159 del 4 aprile 2006 pubblicato in G.U. del 29 aprile 2006, n. 99 -- S.O. n. 105 "Disposizioni integrative e correttive al decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005, n. 82 recante codice dell'amministrazione digitale". *Capo VI* *SVILUPPO, ACQUISIZIONE E RIUSO DI SISTEMI INFORMATICI NELLE PUBBLICHE AMMINISTRAZIONI.* *Art. 67. Modalita' di sviluppo ed acquisizione* 1. Le pubbliche amministrazioni centrali, per i progetti finalizzati ad appalti di lavori e servizi ad alto contenuto di innovazione tecnologica, possono selezionare uno o piu' proposte utilizzando il concorso di idee di cui all'articolo 57 del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 21 dicembre 1999, n. 554. 2. Le amministrazioni appaltanti possono porre a base delle gare aventi ad oggetto la progettazione, o l'esecuzione, o entrambe, degli appalti di cui al comma 1, le proposte ideative acquisite ai sensi del comma 1, previo parere tecnico di congruita' del CNIPA; alla relativa procedura e' ammesso a partecipare, ai sensi dell'articolo 57, comma 6, del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 21 dicembre 1999, n. 554, anche il soggetto selezionato ai sensi del comma 1, qualora sia in possesso dei relativi requisiti soggettivi. *Art. 68. Analisi comparativa delle soluzioni* 1. Le pubbliche amministrazioni, nel rispetto della legge 7 agosto 1990, n. 241, e del decreto legislativo 12 febbraio 1993, n. 39, acquisiscono, secondo le procedure previste dall'ordinamento, programmi informatici a seguito di una valutazione comparativa di tipo tecnico ed economico tra le seguenti soluzioni disponibili sul mercato: a) sviluppo di programmi informatici per conto e a spese dell'amministrazione sulla scorta dei requisiti indicati dalla stessa amministrazione committente; b) riuso di programmi informatici sviluppati per conto e a spese della medesima o di altre amministrazioni; c) acquisizione di programmi informatici di tipo proprietario mediante ricorso a licenza d'uso; d) acquisizione di programmi informatici a codice sorgente aperto; e) acquisizione mediante combinazione delle modalita' di cui alle lettere da a) a d). 2. Le pubbliche amministrazioni nella predisposizione o nell'acquisizione dei programmi informatici, adottano soluzioni informatiche che assicurino l'interoperabilita' e la cooperazione applicativa, secondo quanto previsto dal decreto legislativo 28 febbraio 2005, n. 42, e che consentano la rappresentazione dei dati e documenti in piu' formati, di cui almeno uno di tipo aperto, salvo che ricorrano peculiari ed eccezionali esigenze. 3. Per formato dei dati di tipo aperto si intende un formato dati reso pubblico e documentato esaustivamente. 4. Il CNIPA istruisce ed aggiorna, con periodicita' almeno annuale, un repertorio dei formati aperti utilizzabili nelle pubbliche amministrazioni e delle modalita' di trasferimento dei formati. *Art. 69. Riuso dei programmi informatici* 1. Le pubbliche amministrazioni che siano titolari di programmi applicativi realizzati su specifiche indicazioni del committente pubblico, hanno obbligo di darli in formato sorgente, completi della documentazione disponibile, in uso gratuito ad altre pubbliche amministrazioni che li richiedono e che intendano adattarli alle proprie esigenze, salvo motivate ragioni. 2. Al fine di favorire il riuso dei programmi informatici di proprieta' delle pubbliche amministrazioni, ai sensi del comma 1, nei capitolati o nelle specifiche di progetto e' previsto ove possibile, che i programmi appositamente sviluppati per conto e a spese dell'amministrazione siano facilmente portabili su altre piattaforme. 3. Le pubbliche amministrazioni inseriscono, nei contratti per l'acquisizione di programmi informatici, di cui al comma 1, clausole che garantiscano il diritto di disporre dei programmi ai fini del riuso da parte della medesima o di altre amministrazioni. 4. Nei contratti di acquisizione di programmi informatici sviluppati per conto e a spese delle amministrazioni, le stesse possono includere clausole, concordate con il fornitore, che tengano conto delle caratteristiche economiche ed organizzative di quest'ultimo, volte a vincolarlo, per un determinato lasso di tempo, a fornire, su richiesta di altre amministrazioni, servizi che consentono il riuso delle applicazioni. Le clausole suddette definiscono le condizioni da osservare per la prestazione dei servizi indicati. *Art. 70. Banca dati dei programmi informatici riutilizzabili* 1. Il CNIPA, previo accordo con la Conferenza unificata di cui all'articolo 8 del decreto legislativo 28 agosto 1997, n. 281, valuta e rende note applicazioni tecnologiche realizzate dalle pubbliche amministrazioni, idonee al riuso da parte di altre pubbliche amministrazioni. 2. Le pubbliche amministrazioni centrali che intendono acquisire programmi applicativi valutano preventivamente la possibilita' di riuso delle applicazioni analoghe rese note dal CNIPA ai sensi del comma 1, motivandone l'eventuale mancata adozione.

Jan. 20, 2010

Re: [nexa] Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.

by Andrea Glorioso

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:46:57PM +0100, Stefano Quintarelli wrote: > Beh, c'e' il Safe Harbor. Il "Safe Harbor", cosi` come le "Binding Corporate Rules", sono dei meccanismi sicuramente utili per cercare di ovviare al problema dei meccanismi "globali/locali" a cui ho accennato nella mia email. Da quel che conosco e capisco io del primo meccanismo, pero`, l'effettiva durata di conservazione dei dati non e` oggetto della "self-certification" di Google Inc. pressa la FTC statunitense. Questo, oltre al fatto che l'opinione del WP29 non e` vincolante, rende le decisioni di Google, Microsoft o chi altri interpretabili piu` sotto la luce delle dinamiche di mercato (e della percezione dei consumatori) che non di una mera applicazione del diritto vigente. > io penso che le norme sulla privacy ed il safe harbor diverranno nel > 2010 un argomento chiave delle discussioni tra USA ed Europa per quanto > riguarda l'online, andando a toccare proprio gl iinteressi degli > oepratori economici. Anche i politici che fino a ieri criticavano le > norme sulla privacy si "convertiranno", non per convinzione ma per > utilita', e contribuiranno a miglioraer l apercezione sui consumatori. Sottoscrivo. Ricordo anche che l'entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona introduce una nuova base legale per quanto riguarda la protezione della privacy e dei dati personali (art. 16 del Trattato dell'Unione Europea e Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell'Unione Europea) il che certamente comportera` un maggior attivismo, a livello europeo, sull'argomento - il che a sua volta avra` senz'altro degli effetti di non poco conto sulle relazione tra EU, USA e altri stati. Ciao! -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation

Jan. 20, 2010

Re: [nexa] Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.

by Stefano Quintarelli

Beh, c'e' il Safe Harbor. io penso che le norme sulla privacy ed il safe harbor diverranno nel 2010 un argomento chiave delle discussioni tra USA ed Europa per quanto riguarda l'online, andando a toccare proprio gl iinteressi degli oepratori economici. Anche i politici che fino a ieri criticavano le norme sulla privacy si "convertiranno", non per convinzione ma per utilita', e contribuiranno a miglioraer l apercezione sui consumatori. IMHO... Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Caro Carmelo, cari tutti, > > credo che occorra considerare con attenzione il contesto, come del > resto suggerisci anche tu alla fine della tua email. > > Il periodo massimo di 6 mesi a cui si riferisce la notizia e` una > richiesta del gruppo di lavoro Articolo 29 (WP29), contenuta nella loro > opinione 1/2008 (disponibile presso > http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2008_en.htm) > > Le opinioni del WP29 non sono generalmente vincolanti per gli Stati > Membri o gli operatori economici dell'Unione Europea, ancor meno per quegli > operatori che - a torto o a ragione - sostengono che il processamento > dei dati personali avviene al di fuori del territorio dell'Unione > Europea. > > (Sto semplificando molto, il problema giurisdizionale della Direttiva > 95/54/EC e` complesso ed e` uno dei nodi che si affronteranno nel > corso della relativa revisione - ma l'opinione 1/2008 contiene una > discussione molto interessante anche su questo punto.) > > Dunque, in assenza di norme vincolanti, la decisione di un operatore > economico di agire in una direzione o in un'altra e` giocoforza > determinata dalle pressioni di mercato. In questo senso, l'immagine > di un'azienda percepita dai consumatori gioca, non solo in questo > settore, un ruolo importantissimo. > > Le norme europee sulla protezione dei dati personali sono sicuramente > complesse, ma non piu` che in altri settori. Il problema, alla fine, > continua ad essere la discrasia tra norme "locali" e comportamenti > "globali". > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35:23AM +0100, Carmelo Fontana wrote: >> Oggi sul NYT ho trovato la notizia che Bing (MS) ha dichiarato che >> rispettera' la normativa sulla protezione della privacy. >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html?ref=bu… >> >> A prescindere da ogni considerazione sul merito, mi pare un dato >> interessante quanto l'opinione pubblica sia "intellettualmente >> assuefatta" alla non-compliance con la disciplina sulla privacy (e >> non solo). >> Tanto che la dichiarazione che MS rispettera' la legge e' una notizia... >> >> Ma ancora NYT riporta: â€œGoogle and other engines are starting to >> realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing >> value on privacy and that can have business consequencesâ€ >> >> La regolamentazione sulla privacy sembra essere considerata un >> inconveniente di cui e' tuttavia necessario prendersi cura per >> migliorare la propria immagine... >> Che ne e' stato dell'importanza di rispettare la legge in quanto tale? >> >> Allora, vale la pena di chiedersi se questa situazione sia dovuta a: >> i) una normativa troppo severa/complicata/inapplicabile e quindi >> incompatibile con l'ordinario svolgimento delle attivita', oppure >> ii) un sistema di enforcement inefficace o comunque insufficiente. O >> forse a entrambe le cose. >> >> C. >> >> >> >> >> Microsoft Puts a Time Limit on Bing Data >> By KEVIN J. Oâ€™BRIEN >> Published: January 19, 2010 >> Bowing to pressure in Europe, Microsoft said Tuesday that it would >> comply with regulators and discard all data collected on users of >> its Bing search engine after six months. >> >> John Vassallo, a Microsoft vice president and associate general >> counsel, said the company would introduce the change over the next >> 18 months. The company aims to satisfy a European advisory group >> that had been critical of how search engines collect and retain data >> on individuals for advertising purposes. >> >> The concession, relatively painless for Microsoft given its tiny >> share of the global search market â€” just 3 percent â€” is yet another >> example of an American technology giantâ€™s changing its way of doing >> business to suit stricter European concepts of antitrust and privacy >> laws. >> >> The European Commission in December dropped an antitrust case >> against Microsoft after the software maker took the unprecedented >> step of agreeing to distribute the browsers of its competitors >> through its Windows operating system. >> >> Unlike the agreement on browsers, which will be confined to >> consumers in Europe, Microsoftâ€™s decision to discard data will >> affect users around the world, including in the United States. >> >> Hendrik Speck, a professor of computer science at the University of >> Applied Sciences in Kaiserslautern, Germany, said competitors would >> probably follow Microsoftâ€™s decision because consumers were >> increasingly concerned about online privacy amid widespread data >> theft and rising use of social networks. >> >> â€œGoogle and other engines are starting to realize that consumers >> around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that >> can have business consequences,â€ Professor Speck said. >> >> Europe is the worldâ€™s largest market for Internet searches, >> accounting for 32 percent of online queries, according to comScore, >> a market research company. The Asia-Pacific region had 31 percent of >> searches and North America 22 percent, according a comScore report >> in July. Google has a 67 percent share of the global search market, >> according to comScore, but a more than 80 percent share in Europe, >> where Microsoft has just 2 percent of the market. >> >> In 2008, a panel of national privacy regulators from each European >> Union country asked Microsoft, Google and Yahoo to eliminate all >> online query data, like a computerâ€™s unique identification number, >> location and the text typed into search fields, after six months. >> >> The panel, known as the Article 29 Working Group, held a hearing >> with representatives of the search engine companies last February, >> and has given each until the end of January to respond. >> >> Like other search engines, Bing had been keeping user data for more >> than 18 months. Last year, Microsoft said it would change its policy >> to make an individualâ€™s Internet protocol, or I.P., address >> anonymous after six months if its major competitors did also. >> >> In its announcement Tuesday, Microsoft said it would delete I.P. >> addresses after six months but would retain cookies and other >> session identifiers â€” software that recognizes a returning computer >> â€” for 18 months. Once it deletes an I.P. address, Microsoft said the >> link between data and a specific computer became effectively >> untraceable. >> >> In a statement, Google gave no indication it would accept the >> European Unionâ€™s demands. The companyâ€™s global privacy counsel, >> Peter Fleischer, reaffirmed Googleâ€™s policy of making user data >> anonymous after nine months, saying it struck the proper balance >> between ensuring user privacy and refining the functioning of its >> leading search engine. >> >> â€œData from our search queries represents a crucial arm in our battle >> to protect the security of our services against hacks and fraud,â€ >> Mr. Fleischer said. â€œIt also represents a critical element allowing >> us to help users by innovating and improving the quality of our >> searches.â€ >> >> Yahoo, which had been deleting only a portion of individual I.P. >> addresses, said it would now delete the entire address after 90 days >> and make anonymous the log of a userâ€™s activities. The policy would >> not apply to requests from law enforcement agencies that data be >> retained, said Amber Allman, a Yahoo spokeswoman. >> >> Mr. Vassallo, the Microsoft executive, said his companyâ€™s decision >> to conform to European requests on data retention was meant to avert >> the possibility of new regulation. >> >> â€œIt is possible that the European Union will take a position to >> regulate this one way or the other,â€ Mr. Vassallo said. â€œThat would >> need a high level of responsibility from industry.â€ >> >> >> >> Carmelo Fontana >> carmelo_fontana(a)yahoo.it >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it

Jan. 20, 2010

Re: [nexa] Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Carmelo, cari tutti, credo che occorra considerare con attenzione il contesto, come del resto suggerisci anche tu alla fine della tua email. Il periodo massimo di 6 mesi a cui si riferisce la notizia e` una richiesta del gruppo di lavoro Articolo 29 (WP29), contenuta nella loro opinione 1/2008 (disponibile presso http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2008_en.htm) Le opinioni del WP29 non sono generalmente vincolanti per gli Stati Membri o gli operatori economici dell'Unione Europea, ancor meno per quegli operatori che - a torto o a ragione - sostengono che il processamento dei dati personali avviene al di fuori del territorio dell'Unione Europea. (Sto semplificando molto, il problema giurisdizionale della Direttiva 95/54/EC e` complesso ed e` uno dei nodi che si affronteranno nel corso della relativa revisione - ma l'opinione 1/2008 contiene una discussione molto interessante anche su questo punto.) Dunque, in assenza di norme vincolanti, la decisione di un operatore economico di agire in una direzione o in un'altra e` giocoforza determinata dalle pressioni di mercato. In questo senso, l'immagine di un'azienda percepita dai consumatori gioca, non solo in questo settore, un ruolo importantissimo. Le norme europee sulla protezione dei dati personali sono sicuramente complesse, ma non piu` che in altri settori. Il problema, alla fine, continua ad essere la discrasia tra norme "locali" e comportamenti "globali". Ciao, Andrea On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35:23AM +0100, Carmelo Fontana wrote: > > Oggi sul NYT ho trovato la notizia che Bing (MS) ha dichiarato che > rispettera' la normativa sulla protezione della privacy. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html?ref=bu… > > A prescindere da ogni considerazione sul merito, mi pare un dato > interessante quanto l'opinione pubblica sia "intellettualmente > assuefatta" alla non-compliance con la disciplina sulla privacy (e > non solo). > Tanto che la dichiarazione che MS rispettera' la legge e' una notizia... > > Ma ancora NYT riporta: “Google and other engines are starting to > realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing > value on privacy and that can have business consequences” > > La regolamentazione sulla privacy sembra essere considerata un > inconveniente di cui e' tuttavia necessario prendersi cura per > migliorare la propria immagine... > Che ne e' stato dell'importanza di rispettare la legge in quanto tale? > > Allora, vale la pena di chiedersi se questa situazione sia dovuta a: > i) una normativa troppo severa/complicata/inapplicabile e quindi > incompatibile con l'ordinario svolgimento delle attivita', oppure > ii) un sistema di enforcement inefficace o comunque insufficiente. O > forse a entrambe le cose. > > C. > > > > > Microsoft Puts a Time Limit on Bing Data > By KEVIN J. O’BRIEN > Published: January 19, 2010 > Bowing to pressure in Europe, Microsoft said Tuesday that it would > comply with regulators and discard all data collected on users of > its Bing search engine after six months. > > John Vassallo, a Microsoft vice president and associate general > counsel, said the company would introduce the change over the next > 18 months. The company aims to satisfy a European advisory group > that had been critical of how search engines collect and retain data > on individuals for advertising purposes. > > The concession, relatively painless for Microsoft given its tiny > share of the global search market — just 3 percent — is yet another > example of an American technology giant’s changing its way of doing > business to suit stricter European concepts of antitrust and privacy > laws. > > The European Commission in December dropped an antitrust case > against Microsoft after the software maker took the unprecedented > step of agreeing to distribute the browsers of its competitors > through its Windows operating system. > > Unlike the agreement on browsers, which will be confined to > consumers in Europe, Microsoft’s decision to discard data will > affect users around the world, including in the United States. > > Hendrik Speck, a professor of computer science at the University of > Applied Sciences in Kaiserslautern, Germany, said competitors would > probably follow Microsoft’s decision because consumers were > increasingly concerned about online privacy amid widespread data > theft and rising use of social networks. > > “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers > around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that > can have business consequences,” Professor Speck said. > > Europe is the world’s largest market for Internet searches, > accounting for 32 percent of online queries, according to comScore, > a market research company. The Asia-Pacific region had 31 percent of > searches and North America 22 percent, according a comScore report > in July. Google has a 67 percent share of the global search market, > according to comScore, but a more than 80 percent share in Europe, > where Microsoft has just 2 percent of the market. > > In 2008, a panel of national privacy regulators from each European > Union country asked Microsoft, Google and Yahoo to eliminate all > online query data, like a computer’s unique identification number, > location and the text typed into search fields, after six months. > > The panel, known as the Article 29 Working Group, held a hearing > with representatives of the search engine companies last February, > and has given each until the end of January to respond. > > Like other search engines, Bing had been keeping user data for more > than 18 months. Last year, Microsoft said it would change its policy > to make an individual’s Internet protocol, or I.P., address > anonymous after six months if its major competitors did also. > > In its announcement Tuesday, Microsoft said it would delete I.P. > addresses after six months but would retain cookies and other > session identifiers — software that recognizes a returning computer > — for 18 months. Once it deletes an I.P. address, Microsoft said the > link between data and a specific computer became effectively > untraceable. > > In a statement, Google gave no indication it would accept the > European Union’s demands. The company’s global privacy counsel, > Peter Fleischer, reaffirmed Google’s policy of making user data > anonymous after nine months, saying it struck the proper balance > between ensuring user privacy and refining the functioning of its > leading search engine. > > “Data from our search queries represents a crucial arm in our battle > to protect the security of our services against hacks and fraud,” > Mr. Fleischer said. “It also represents a critical element allowing > us to help users by innovating and improving the quality of our > searches.” > > Yahoo, which had been deleting only a portion of individual I.P. > addresses, said it would now delete the entire address after 90 days > and make anonymous the log of a user’s activities. The policy would > not apply to requests from law enforcement agencies that data be > retained, said Amber Allman, a Yahoo spokeswoman. > > Mr. Vassallo, the Microsoft executive, said his company’s decision > to conform to European requests on data retention was meant to avert > the possibility of new regulation. > > “It is possible that the European Union will take a position to > regulate this one way or the other,” Mr. Vassallo said. “That would > need a high level of responsibility from industry.” > > > > Carmelo Fontana > carmelo_fontana(a)yahoo.it > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation

Jan. 20, 2010

Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.

by Carmelo Fontana

Oggi sul NYT ho trovato la notizia che Bing (MS) ha dichiarato che rispettera' la normativa sulla protezione della privacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html?ref=bu… A prescindere da ogni considerazione sul merito, mi pare un dato interessante quanto l'opinione pubblica sia "intellettualmente assuefatta" alla non-compliance con la disciplina sulla privacy (e non solo). Tanto che la dichiarazione che MS rispettera' la legge e' una notizia... Ma ancora NYT riporta: “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that can have business consequences” La regolamentazione sulla privacy sembra essere considerata un inconveniente di cui e' tuttavia necessario prendersi cura per migliorare la propria immagine... Che ne e' stato dell'importanza di rispettare la legge in quanto tale? Allora, vale la pena di chiedersi se questa situazione sia dovuta a: i) una normativa troppo severa/complicata/inapplicabile e quindi incompatibile con l'ordinario svolgimento delle attivita', oppure ii) un sistema di enforcement inefficace o comunque insufficiente. O forse a entrambe le cose. C. Microsoft Puts a Time Limit on Bing Data By KEVIN J. O’BRIEN Published: January 19, 2010 Bowing to pressure in Europe, Microsoft said Tuesday that it would comply with regulators and discard all data collected on users of its Bing search engine after six months. John Vassallo, a Microsoft vice president and associate general counsel, said the company would introduce the change over the next 18 months. The company aims to satisfy a European advisory group that had been critical of how search engines collect and retain data on individuals for advertising purposes. The concession, relatively painless for Microsoft given its tiny share of the global search market — just 3 percent — is yet another example of an American technology giant’s changing its way of doing business to suit stricter European concepts of antitrust and privacy laws. The European Commission in December dropped an antitrust case against Microsoft after the software maker took the unprecedented step of agreeing to distribute the browsers of its competitors through its Windows operating system. Unlike the agreement on browsers, which will be confined to consumers in Europe, Microsoft’s decision to discard data will affect users around the world, including in the United States. Hendrik Speck, a professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Kaiserslautern, Germany, said competitors would probably follow Microsoft’s decision because consumers were increasingly concerned about online privacy amid widespread data theft and rising use of social networks. “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that can have business consequences,” Professor Speck said. Europe is the world’s largest market for Internet searches, accounting for 32 percent of online queries, according to comScore, a market research company. The Asia-Pacific region had 31 percent of searches and North America 22 percent, according a comScore report in July. Google has a 67 percent share of the global search market, according to comScore, but a more than 80 percent share in Europe, where Microsoft has just 2 percent of the market. In 2008, a panel of national privacy regulators from each European Union country asked Microsoft, Google and Yahoo to eliminate all online query data, like a computer’s unique identification number, location and the text typed into search fields, after six months. The panel, known as the Article 29 Working Group, held a hearing with representatives of the search engine companies last February, and has given each until the end of January to respond. Like other search engines, Bing had been keeping user data for more than 18 months. Last year, Microsoft said it would change its policy to make an individual’s Internet protocol, or I.P., address anonymous after six months if its major competitors did also. In its announcement Tuesday, Microsoft said it would delete I.P. addresses after six months but would retain cookies and other session identifiers — software that recognizes a returning computer — for 18 months. Once it deletes an I.P. address, Microsoft said the link between data and a specific computer became effectively untraceable. In a statement, Google gave no indication it would accept the European Union’s demands. The company’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, reaffirmed Google’s policy of making user data anonymous after nine months, saying it struck the proper balance between ensuring user privacy and refining the functioning of its leading search engine. “Data from our search queries represents a crucial arm in our battle to protect the security of our services against hacks and fraud,” Mr. Fleischer said. “It also represents a critical element allowing us to help users by innovating and improving the quality of our searches.” Yahoo, which had been deleting only a portion of individual I.P. addresses, said it would now delete the entire address after 90 days and make anonymous the log of a user’s activities. The policy would not apply to requests from law enforcement agencies that data be retained, said Amber Allman, a Yahoo spokeswoman. Mr. Vassallo, the Microsoft executive, said his company’s decision to conform to European requests on data retention was meant to avert the possibility of new regulation. “It is possible that the European Union will take a position to regulate this one way or the other,” Mr. Vassallo said. “That would need a high level of responsibility from industry.” Carmelo Fontana carmelo_fontana(a)yahoo.it

Jan. 20, 2010

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →