March 2012 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: Audizione del Presidente Agcom, Corrado Calabrò, sul diritto d'autore
by Masera Anna March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

il testo dell’audizione sul diritto d’autore del Presidente Agcom, Corrado Calabrò, oggi davanti alle Commissioni VII e VIII del Senato.

3 2

Dopo l'audizione di Calabrò al Senato.
by G.Battista Frontera March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdTRhfrUEO8 Ciao. Gb

1 0

Nomine Agcom, editoriale De Martin in prima pagina su La Stampa
by Masera Anna March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Nomine AgCom Non lasciamo Internet ai Martusciello di Juan Carlos De Martin http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplRubriche/editoriali/gEditoriali.asp?I…

4 3

Re: [nexa] Network operators and content providers: who bears the costs?
by ugo.pagallo＠unito.it March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

Oltre ai costi sociali per la sciagurata crociata del copyright, sarebbe bene capire meglio come si delinea il "fair balance" cui fa riferimento la Corte di Giustizia in relazione all'art. 16 della Carta europea dei diritti e l'art. 3(1) D-2004/48, tanto nella sentenza Scarlett (C-70/10 #48-49), quanto in SABAM (C-360/10). Sin d'ora grazie per gli aggiornamenti, u.p. > > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: [nexa] Network operators and content providers: > who bears the costs? > Da: a.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it > Data: Lun, 19 Marzo 2012, 4:22 pm > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > <font face="Sans Serif > predefinito,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"> > <div>Sono stato invitato ad un seminario che l'Istituto > Bruno Leoni organizza a Roma, presso il Boscolo Palace > (via Vittorio Veneto, 70 - sala Api), il prossimo 20 > marzo a partire dalle ore 10:30. Tema della discussione > (che avrÃ luogo fra interlocutori qualificati e sotto la > regola di Chatham House) Ã¨ un recente studio > del Wissenschaftliches Institut fÃ¼r Infrastruktur > und Kommunikationsdienste su âNetwork operators and > content providers: who bears the costs?".<br><br>Il > delicato bilanciamento fra le esigenze degli operatori > della rete, dei fornitori di servizi della societÃ > dell'informazione e dei produttori di contenuti Ã¨ uno > dei piÃ¹ complessi problemi con cui si fronteggia, oggi, > il mondo della regolamentazione della telefonia e, piÃ¹ > in generale, dell'information and communication > technology.<br>PerciÃ² credo che offrirÃ² un punto di > vista alternativo sostenendo che i costi finora li hanno > pagati gli utenti, in temini di leggi repressive, > inefficienze dei servizi e sfruttamento della lto > proprietÃ intellettuale. Che dite, faccio > bene?<br></div><div><br>[....]<br></div><div>Lo studio > verrÃ presentato dal capo del dipartimento "NGN and > Internet Economics" del WIK, J. Scott Marcus: giÃ Senior > Advisor for Internet Technology della Federal > Communications Commission americana, e prima ancora > attachÃ© alla Commissione Europea (DG INFSO) quale > Transatlantic Fellow del German Marshall Fund of the > United States. Marcus Ã¨ un autore noto e dalle > molteplici pubblicazioni su questi temi. Dopo la > presentazione di Marcus, avremo ampio spazio per > discutere e per esaminare, anche grazie alla Sua > presenza, i diversi punti di vista sul tema. La > discussione sarÃ coordinata da Alberto Mingardi > (Direttore Generale dell'Istituto Bruno > Leoni)</div> <div><br></div><div><br></div><span>**********************<br>âThe > Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around > it.â<br>â John Gilmore</span><div></div></font> > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

2 1

Fwd: [A2k] Unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidates Prometheus diagnostic test patents and reverses Federal Circuit decision
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] Unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidates Prometheus diagnostic test patents and reverses Federal Circuit decision Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:11:02 -0400 From: Krista Cox <krista.cox(a)keionline.org> To: a2k(a)lists.keionline.org This case has likely implications for access to knowledge and information, including in particular the Myriad BRCA1& BRCA2 gene patent case. http://keionline.org/node/1392 In a major patent ruling today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories. The case, heard twice before the Federal Circuit (once before the Supreme Court's ruling in Bilski and once after), has been closely followed because of its impacts on personalized medicine and potential implications for the Myriad Genetics case on the BRCA genes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that Prometheus' patents-at-issue were not eligible for patent protection. The facts of the case are as follows. Prometheus Laboratories was the sole and exclusive licensee of the patents and sold diagnostic tests based upon these patents. The patents concern the use of thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn's desease or ulcerative colitis. The body metabolizes thiopurine drugs and causes metabolites to form in a patient's bloodstream. Because metabolization varies from patient to patient, different doses are necessary in order to reduce side effects but still maintain effective treatment levels. The patents at issue emobody findings that certain concentrations indicate the dosage was too high, whereas other concentrations indicated too low of a dosage. After using the Prometheus diagnostic tests, Mayo subsequently announced that it would begin using and selling its own test. Prometheus then brought action against Mayo for patent infringement. The District Court in the case granted summary judgment in Mayo's favor, but the Federal Circuit reversed. Mayo filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court granted, but then vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Bilski. The Federal Circuit then reaffirmed its earlier decision and Mayo again filed for certiorari which was again accepted. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion which can be found here. In holding that the patents-at-issue were not patentable, the Court found that more than one must do more than a mere application of a law of nature to render such a law patent eligible. It stated that a patent that describes the relation set forth in natural law does does not do enough to permit a patent. Providing instructions on applying natural laws does not transform "unpatentable natural laws into patent eligible applications of that laws." The case focused, in large part, on Section 101 of the Patent Act which the Court noted includes an implicit exception that laws of nature are not patentable subject matter. The Court focused its decision, in part, on the reasoning for the implicit exception and implications patents can have on future innovation. Citing past precedent in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), the Court noted that phenomena of nature and abstract principles are "basic tools" of science and "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." The Court also noted that the claimed processes involved "upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries." Repeatedly, the opinion emphasizes the "concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of laws of nature" and that --- there is a danger that the grant of patents that tie up their use will inhibit future innovation permised upon them, a danger that becomes acute when a patented process amounts to no more than an instruction to 'apply the natural law,' or otherwise forecloses more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify. --- In addition to its concerns regarding future research and development, the Court also noted that the process claimed by Prometheus involved activity already well-understood and utilized by the scientific community: --- To put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. For these reasons we believe that the steps are not sufficient to transform unpatentable natural correlations into patentable applications of those regulations. --- The opinion rejected the US Government's position that "virtually any step beyond a statement of a law of nature" transforms an unpatentable law into an patent-eligible application. In rejecting this position, the Court found that such an approach would make the implicit law of nature exception to Section 101 a "dead letter." Finally, the Court made one important clarification regarding its 2010 decision in In re Bilski. Although the Federal Circuit found that the "machine or transformation" test is an "important and useful clue" to patent eligibility under the guidance of the Bilski decision, the Supreme Court noted here that "we have neither said nor implied that the test trumps the 'law of nature' exclusion." It also cited the differing of opinion, recognizing that patent protection is a "two-edged sword." Although amici on Prometheus' side claimed need for patent protection to encourage discoveries, amici for Mayo, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Hospital Association, the American Society of Human Genetics, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Association for Molecular Pathology, among others, argued that --- "claims to exclusive rights over the body's natural responses to illness and medical treatment are permitted to stand, the result will be a vast thicket of exclusive rights over the use of critical scientific data that must remain widely available if physicians are to provide sound medical care." --- The case will likely have implications for American Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The arguments against the patent eligibility of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes rest on the same case law and principles cited by the Supreme Court in Prometheus. The issues of application of well-understood research tools, field preemption and implications for further innovation are all major factors in the Myriad case. Additionally, the Court relied on the same precedent cited in favor of AMP, including Gottschalk v. Benson, Diamond v. Diehr, Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. I would expect that the Supreme Court will ask the Federal Circuit to re-hear the Myriad case and to decide it in light of the Prometheus ruling (much as the Federal Circuit re-heard Prometheus after the Supreme Court decided Bilski). Based on the guidance of the Supreme Court in Prometheus, the Federal Circuit could reverse its ruling in Myriad. Alternatively, if the Federal Circuit comes down on the same side and upholds Myriad's patents, the case could be appealed again to the Supreme Court. Additional coverage of the case is available via Pharmalot. -- Krista L. Cox Staff Attorney Knowledge Ecology International www.keionline.org (202) 332-2670 -- Krista L. Cox Staff Attorney Knowledge Ecology International www.keionline.org (202) 332-2670 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

dall'AGCOM: intervento di Calabrò alla relazione dell'Organo di vigilanza di Open access su Governance della Rete e Agenda Digitale
by Masera Anna March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

Vi inoltro, in allegato, il testo dell'intervento del Presidente Corrado Calabrò alla relazione dell'organo di vigilanza di Open Access.

1 0

Italia, ricerca a picco: intervista al prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo
by Masera Anna March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

ciao a tutti, vi segnalo questo bell'intervento del prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo, che abbiamo intervistato sul grave problema della ricerca a picco in Italia: http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/tecnologia/grubrica.asp?ID_b…

1 0

Hacking Film Festival (Milano)
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

1 0

2nd MODAP-MOVE Summer School on Privacy-aware Social Mining
by eleonora.bassi＠unito.it March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

FYI ---------------- Messaggio originale ------------------- Oggetto: 2nd MODAP-MOVE Summer School on Privacy-aware Social Mining Da: "Anna Monreale" <annam(a)di.unipi.it> Data: Lun, 19 Marzo 2012, 6:32 pm A: annam(a)di.unipi.it ---------------------------------------------------------- Please forward this Call for Participation to interested persons. -------------------- 2nd MODAP-MOVE Summer School on Privacy-aware Social Mining http://mss2012.modap.org/ Leysin, Switzerland, 1-6 July 2012 Deadline for grant application: 25 April, 2012 Deadline for registration: 15 May, 2012 ========================================================== The 2nd Summer School on Mobility, Data Mining, and Privacy is co-organized by the FP7/ICT project MODAP ?Mobility, Data Mining and Privacy? and the COST Action IC0903 MOVE ?Knowledge Discovery from Moving Objects". It is also supported by the FP7/Marie Curie project SEEK and by CUSO, a coordination body for western Switzerland universities The specific focus of this edition is on privacy-aware social mining, i.e. how to discover the patterns and models of social complexity from the digital traces of our life, in a privacy preserving way. The school targets doctoral students and young postdocs as well as a small number of senior researchers working on database management, machine learning, data mining, GIS, statistics, complex systems, social and economic sciences, law, and interdisciplinary studies. Attendees will receive intensive training in the above topic taught by well-known experts. The participants will also be given an opportunity to present their own work, and receive feedback. To benefit from optimal training conditions, the school is based on limited attendance. Please send your application form as soon as possible. ======Themes and speakers====== * Trust Networks and Reality Mining (Alex 'Sandy' Pentland, MIT-Cambridge, USA) * Legal & ethical challenges for the knowledge society (Mireille Hildebrandt, Center for Law Science Technology & Society Studies (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium) * Models of social complexity (Laszlo Barabasi,Northeastern/Harvard University, USA; Dirk Helbing, ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Dino Pedreschi, University of Pisa, Italy) * Trust & Privacy enhancing technologies (Elena Ferrari, Uni. Insubria,Italy) * Database challenges for big data analytics (Minos Garofalakis, Technical University of Crete, Greece) * Smart self-organizing cities (Olivier Verscheure, IBM Research, Ireland) * Mobilytics: mobility data analytics (Gennady & Natalia Andrienko, Fraunhofer IAIS,Sankt Augustin, Germany and Salvo Rinzivillo, ISTI-CNR., Pisa, Italy) * Privacy-preserving mobilytics (Maria Luisa Damiani Uni. Milan, and Anna Monreale, University of Pisa, Italy) ======Venue====== The venue for this event is Leysin, a mountain village and resort in the Swiss Alps, close to the Lake of Geneva: http://www.leysin.ch/en/. Thanks to its revolving restaurant Kuklos located at 2,048 m on top of La Berneuse, and accessible by cable-car, Leysin (1,264 m) offers the possibility to enjoy a unique 360? panorama of Alpine peaks: Eiger, Mont-Blanc, Matterhorn and Dents du Midi. ======Registration fees and grant opportunities======= The registration fee is a fixed rate that covers all expenses directly related to the participation to theschool for the whole period of the school . - Student fee regular: 660 chf (app. 550 euros, full board, accommodation in shared double room at IBIS hotel) - Student fee superior: 850 chf (app. 710 euros, full board, accommodation in single room at IBIS hotel) - Regular fee single: 1070 chf (app. 890 euros, full board, accommodation in single room at Mercure hotel) - Regular fee shared: 850 chf (app. 710 euros, per person, full board, accommodation in double room at Mercure hotel) - Regular fee for one participant with one accompanying person: 1475 chf (app. 1220 euros, accommodation in double room at Mercure hotel, full board for the participant and half-board for the accompanying person) A number of grants are available to facilitate the participation of students to the Summer School. The procedure for grant applications can be found at http://mss2012.modap.org ====== Important dates======= - Deadline for grant application: April 25,2012 - Grant notification: May 4, 2012 - Deadline for registration: May 15, 2012 - Summer school starts: July 1, 2012 - Summer school ends: July 6, 2012 ====== Organization ======== **Steering Committee** Gennady Andrienko, Fraunhofer IAIS, Germany Maria Luisa Damiani, U. Milan, Italy (Program co-Chair) Josep Domingo-Ferrer, U. Rovira i Virgili, Catalonia, Spain Fosca Giannotti, ISTI/CNR, Italy (Program co-Chair) Dimitrios Gunopulos, U. Athens, Greece Bart Kuijpers, Hasselt U., Belgium Katharina Morik, U. Dortmund, Germany Christine Parent, U. of Lausanne, Switzerland (Organizing Co-Chair) Yucel Saygin, Sabanci U., Turkey (MODAP project coordinator) Stefano Spaccapietra, EPFL, Switzerland (Organizing Co-Chair) Chiara Renso, CNR, Italy (SEEK coordinator) Yannis Theodoridis, U. Piraeus, Greece Nico Van de Weghe, Ghent U., Belgium Robert Weibel, U. Zurich, Switzerland (Chair, COST Action IC0903 MOVE) **Organization Committee** Christine Parent, University of Lausanne, Switzerland ( christine.parent(a)epfl.ch) Stefano Spaccapietra, EPFL, Switzerland (stefano.spaccapietra(a)epfl.ch) ====== Contact ====== For further information on the program please send an e-mail to the Program Chairs (Maria Luisa Damiani damiani(a)dico.unimi.it, Fosca Giannotti fosca.giannotti(a)isti.cnr.it) For further information on the local arrangements, please contact Mrs Marlyse Taric, secretary of the School (marlyse.taric(a)epfl.ch) --------------------------------------------------- Anna Monreale Department of Computer Science University of Pisa Largo Pontecorvo 3 - 56127 Pisa, Italy http://www.di.unipi.it/~annam annam(a)di.unipi.it

1 0

Network operators and content providers: who bears the costs?
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

1 0