- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

p.s.
by Stefano Quintarelli Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

p.s. non avevo idea quanto fosse frammentato l'IT pubblico. comprensibili tutte le lamentele contro lo stato e la burocrazia. gli attuali sistemi sono solo il frutto della meccanizzazione: quando i comuni gestivano l'anagrafe sulla carta non poteva che essere così. l'integrazione appòlicativa la fanno i cittadini che sono il bus per fare comunicare due sistemi informativi con i device di I/O che sono impiegati e la portante e' la carta al giorno d'oggi non DEVE più essere così e per farlo occorre coordinamento. e per poterlo consentire occorreva togliere il tappo che lo rendeva incostituzionale. (ammesso la riforma arrivi in fondo) ciao,s. -- meet me at http://me.quintarelli.it blog: http://blog.quintarelli.it web clips: http://clips.quintarelli.it tumblr: http://stefanoquintarelli.tumblr.com

7 16

Un po' di digitale in Parlamento ed in Costituzione
by Blengino Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

Merita ascoltare la discussione che si è svolta in parlamento a partire dellintervento, garbato e vero , di Stefano Quintarelli : http://webtv.camera.it/archivio?legislatura=17 <http://webtv.camera.it/archivio?legislatura=17&seduta=374&intervento=393381 > &seduta=374&intervento=393381 Per il tema, e per il modo. Al di là del merito dellemendamento, approvato con un revirement di tutte le forze politiche e del Governo, in modo trasparente perché poggiato su argomenti e logica, è una di quelle volte in cui tocchi con mano cosè il Parlamento, cosè la democrazia rappresentativa e cosa vuol dire fare il parlamentare. Se il main stream ci restituisce delle nostre istituzioni solo immagini rissose buone per il ciarpame mediatico, ogni tanto fa bene vedere cosa succede lì: e succedono anche cose belle. Grazie a Quintarelli, davvero! Carlo

6 5

NYT: "Obama Heads to Tech Security Talks Amid Tensions"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

*Obama Heads to Tech Security Talks Amid Tensions* By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTH February 12, 2015 PALO ALTO, Calif. — President Obama will meet here on Friday with the nation’s top technologists on a host of cybersecurity issues and the threats posed by increasingly sophisticated hackers. But nowhere on the agenda is the real issue for the chief executives and tech company officials who will gather on the Stanford campus: the deepening estrangement between Silicon Valley and the government. The long history of quiet cooperation between Washington and America’s top technology companies — first to win the Cold War, then to combat terrorism — was founded on the assumption of mutual interest. Edward J. Snowden’s revelations shattered that. Now, the Obama administration’s efforts to prevent companies from greatly strengthening encryption in commercial products like Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android phones has set off a new battle, as the companies resist government efforts to make sure police and intelligence agencies can crack the systems. […] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/business/obama-heads-to-security-talks-am…

1 0

luci e ombre
by Mariella Berra Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Cari amici di Nexa, complimenti per la carat dei diritti cheè una vera e articolata carta dei diritti Problemi giuridici in corso per Arduino http://www.wired.it/gadget/computer/2015/02/12/arduino-nel-caos-situazione/ http://playground.blogautore.repubblica.it/2015/02/11/la-guerra-per-arduino… Che succede in Arduino Wired febbraio 2015 Per ridere un po’ Marco Malvaldi http://statics.wired.it/files/site/20150210/la_filosofia_del_brevetto.pdf sempre su Wired http://www.wired.it Ciao mariella -- Prof.ssa Mariella Berra Dipartimento di Culture, Politica e Società Università di Torino tel.+390116702606

1 0

NYTimes: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/technology/personaltech/googles-time-at-t… The tech giant is trying to evolve beyond a search behemoth, but it faces the same problems as the once-mighty tech companies that came before it. (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Droni: L'italia è all'avanguardia
by Diego Giorio Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

<http://www.lavocedeldiritto.it/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=747:l-o…> Segnalo questo articolo sui "guardroni"! Saluti a tutti Diego

1 0

Fwd: Unified Patent Court a mistake of historic dimensions?
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

Sul brevetto unico EU; Josef Drexl è un garante Nexa. JC (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: <d004620(a)polito.it> > From: Ante Wessels <ante(a)FFII.ORG> > Date: 13 febbraio 2015 11:26:16 CET > To: IP-ENFORCEMENT(a)ROSTER.WCL.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Unified Patent Court a mistake of historic dimensions? > Reply-To: Ante Wessels <ante(a)FFII.ORG> > > Unified Patent Court a mistake of historic dimensions? > http://blog.ffii.org/?p=2370 > with links > > Ante Wessels > > The EU wants to create a Unified Patent Court (UPC). I will discuss some aspects of the UPC and make two more general remarks on (adjudicative) system design. > > The UPC proposal has a twist; it tries to minimise the role of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). This may lead to an expansionist interpretation of patent law. According to Josef Drexl, director of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, this could easily amount to a mistake of historic dimensions: > > "The policy argument behind this is to concentrate patent law cases before highly specialized patent courts and to prevent, as far as possible, any general law court from controlling the specialized court. Yet, whether such a judicial system would make sense in the first place was never seriously or intensively discussed. The experience in the US, where the centralization of appeals in patent cases before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prompted an expansionist interpretation and application of the US Patent Act, which finally caused the Supreme Court to intervene and oppose a series of judgments of the Federal Circuit, advocates against such a judicial system. This is not to deny that there are past judgments of the CJEU in which even this court took the protection of intellectual property rights too far. It is also true that patent law presents particular challenges of understanding to general law courts. Yet, specialized patent law courts may be equally weak in taking into account the broader societal implications of patent protection and therefore be more likely to develop a pro-patent bias. This is ofparticular concern in the case of the Unified Patent Court, which will have to convince patent applicants and patent owners to opt into the new system especially during the first years of its existence. In the light of such risks, and especially in the light of the need to guarantee full respect of the fundamental rights, to prevent the CJEU frominterpreting the rules of the UPC Agreement could easily amount to a mistake of historic dimensions." > > Case against the UPC > > Spain started a case against the creation of the Unified Patent Court. Advocate General Bot refutes the Spanish claims. Drexl’s article is a reaction on Advocate General Bot’s opinion. > > Undo the twist? > > The EU member states want to minimise the role of the CJEU by moving substantive patent law provisions from an EU regulation to an international agreement – the UPC Agreement. > > Drexl argues that the CJEU should conclude that the UPC Agreement falls fully within the jurisdiction of the CJEU. This would give the CJEU the final say: > > "This approach would save the project of a unitary patent system and simultaneously inform the Unified Patent Court that it has to refer questions regarding the interpretation of the UPC Agreement to the CJEU." > > This would certainly be an essential improvement. I will note two issues. > > 1 Legislative feedback loop > > The EU has a legislative feedback loop; we can change our laws that do not work out well. > > Lord Steyn explained (regarding the UK): "in striking the balance the courts may arrive at a result unacceptable to Parliament. In such cases Parliament can act with great speed to reverse the effect of a decision. It has done so in the past. That is in the spirit of our constitution, and is wholly in accord with the democratic ideal." > > The EU Parliament can not reverse court decisions, they can change laws for the future. > > It is harder to change an international agreement than an EU regulation. The EU member states moved the substantive patent law provisions from a regulation to an international agreement. Does this undermine the legislative feedback loop? If so, the EU would undermine our democratic principle, and undermine our ability to act against patent trolls, and redesign access to medicine issues. The court should then reject the UPC. > > Or doesn’t this matter, as the EU can make a regulation on substantive patent law anyway and force the UPC to work with it (once the UPC Agreement falls fully within the jurisdiction of the CJEU, as Drexl suggests)? The CJEU should be explicit on this. > > 2 Economic development > > An article by Dimitris Xenos suggests that the UPC may not be beneficial for most EU countries. > > The community / union worked on a patent court for decades. It seems the commission never properly did their homework. > > Poland, that played such an important role in the debates on the software patents directive proposal and ACTA, opted out at the last moment. A wake up call? > > I will make two more general remarks on system design. > > General supreme court and legislative feedback loop > > Adjudicative systems need a general supreme court on top to integrate the various law systems and correct bias in a specialised court. A legislative feedback loop complements this. > > Fora without a general supreme court and legislative feedback loop, creating a risk on undemocratic expansionist interpretation, are the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, the WTO panels and investor to state dispute settlement tribunals. An international investment court, as proposed by UNCTAD, would be another example. > > EU and system design > > The EU seems to have an inherent problem with system and institutional design. > > Politicians make compromises. Compromises may not work well in system and institutional design; they can easily lead to compromised systems. Finding good solutions may be hard enough within a state. The EU has a much more complicated structure than a state; designing systems often goes wrong. Examples are the euro and the UPC; investor to state dispute settlement (ISDS) may be a next example. Broken systems are unstable, easily lead to severe problems later on. > > And due to the EU’s complicated structure, systemic issues are hard to solve. > > Art restorers try to only use reversible steps. Deeper system scrutiny, a modular approach, and workable exit options may be a good approach for the EU. > > Take for instance investor-to-state dispute settlement. The member states concluded stand-alone agreements from which it is possible to withdraw. The commission now wants to include this corrupt system in trade agreements from which it is hardly possible to withdraw. Superficial system scrutiny, not modular, no workable exit option: a recipe for disaster. > > Further reading > > Ingve Björn Stjerna, unitary-patent.eu/, Glyn Moody, Kluwer blog, Techrights.org > > FFII 2012a, FFII 2012b, FFII 2013 > > FFII work on predecessors of the UPC: epla.ffii.org/, eupat.ffii.org/ > >

1 0

la SIAE mi dà dei soldi per un opera Creative Commons
by Simone Aliprandi Feb. 13, 2015

Feb. 13, 2015

L'ennesima storia surreale che dimostra come il criteri tradizionali del diritto d'autore e specialmente della gestione collettiva non riescano a inquadrare correttamente il fenomeno delle licenze open. Leggete (e se vi va, commentate) questa storia surreale. In sostanza, ho ricevuto dei soldi dalla SIAE. Ma non ho ancora capito bene perché, dato che si trattava di un opera CC: http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2015/02/soldi-da-siae-perche-reprografia.html. Un caro saluto. S.A. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

1 0

IEEE Spectrum: "California’s No Drone Zones"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

*California’s No Drone Zones* By Tekla Perry Posted 11 Feb 2015 | 15:00 GMT Do property owners have control over their airspace? That’s the question on the table when the California legislature considers bill SB 142, which bans trespassing by drones. The legislation would only cover drones flying below 400 feet (122 meters); above 400 feet, the airspace is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is still working out its drone rules, but at this point the regulations require hobbyists to keep their drones below 400 feet. […] Continua qui: http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/robotics/aerial-robots/califo…

2 1

Dichiarazione del sottosegretario MIUR Faraone (PD)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Enfasi mia. jc Sottosegretario Faraone: «Noi non vogliamo dare le chiave delle nostre scuole ai privati, ma al tempo stesso non abbiamo paura del rapporto con i privati./Se Microsoft mette a disposizione risorse economiche per formare insegnanti sulla didattica digitale, o Unipol vuole investire su edifici fatiscenti, dobbiamo rifiutare?/». «Certo - prosegue il sottosegretario -, non devono essere risorse indispensabili: quello che è indispensabile lo mette lo Stato, /ma se ci sono risorse aggiuntive, le prendo. E ogni istituto può fare in autonomia queste convenzioni/». Fonte: http://www.corriere.it/scuola/secondaria/15_febbraio_09/presa-diretta-sfasc…

3 2