nexa

By thread

nexa@server-nexa.polito.it

38 participants
30611 messages

Il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio e' online

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Comunicato Stampa Torino, 25 gennaio 2010 IL MANIFESTO DEL PUBBLICO DOMINIO E' ONLINE http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org/ Storicamente il pubblico dominio, ovvero quelle opere dell'ingegno che si possono usare liberamente, come gli scritti di Alessandro Manzoni o le musiche di Giuseppe Verdi, ha rappresentato un bene comune di cruciale importanza per lo sviluppo della cultura. Il pubblico dominio, infatti, e' costituito da opere che si possono liberamente tradurre, adattare e offrire nei formati piu' svariati (per ipovedenti, illustrati o riassunti per bambini, eccetera), facilitando e ampliando l'accesso alla cultura, soddisfando, almeno in linea di principio, tutti i bisogni degli utenti e fornendo materiale inesauribile per produrre nuove opere. Nel corso degli ultimi decenni, tuttavia, le progressive estensioni del diritto d'autore hanno ridotto drasticamente tale patrimonio di conoscenza condiviso. Cio', infatti, che agli albori del copyright era protetto per quattordici anni dalla data di pubblicazione e' ora protetto fino a settant'anni dopo la morte dell'autore (se non di piu', a seconda dei casi). Una durata pressoche' infinita gia' in passato, ma a maggior ragione oggi, nell'era di Internet. Per riaffermare l'importanza del pubblico dominio nelle nostre società così spesso definite “della conoscenza”, oggi il progetto europeo COMMUNIA, coordinato dal Centro NEXA su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino, lancia il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio (http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org) un documento che ricorda a tutti i principi alla base del pubblico dominio - inteso anche come "commons" e come prerogative degli utenti - e che propone alcuni principi guida e alcune raccomandazioni per assicurarne la vitalità sia oggi sia per le generazioni future. Intellettuali di fama mondiale come Lawrence Lessig (Harvard University) e James Boyle (Duke University), nonché organizzazioni come Creative Commons (USA), Open Knowledge Foundation (UK) e Knowledgeland (Olanda), compaiono tra i primi firmatari del Manifesto, al quale, da oggi, sia individui sia enti possono aderire online all'indirizzo www.publicdomainmanifesto.org. Il Manifesto si affianca alla recente giornata del Pubblico Dominio (1° gennaio 2010, http://publicdomainday.org) celebrata per segnare il giorno in cui ogni anno le opere di svariati autori e artisti cessano di essere coperte dal diritto d'autore (generalmente ciò avviene dopo 70 anni dopo la morte) per entrare a far parte del Pubblico Dominio. Quest'anno in diversi paesi si è celebrato il passaggio nel pubblico dominio delle opere di celebri autori morti nel 1939,come Sigmund Freud, William Butler Yeats e Alphonse Mucha. Il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio è già disponibile in diverse lingue, con altre traduzioni in arrivo, e può essere firmato da chiunque lo desideri. Il Manifesto e' anche presente su Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/The-Public-Domain-Manifesto/448371…) Cos'è il Pubblico Dominio In base alla corrente normativa sul diritto d'autore (o copyright), fanno parte del pubblico dominio quelle opere mai coperte dal copyright (perché non originali o perché meri fatti, leggi scientifiche, ecc.) o che non lo sono più per la scadenza del limite temporale di protezione previsto dalla legge (in molti paesi 70 anni dopo la morte dell'autore). Nella definizione adottata dal progetto COMMUNIA, il termine assume tuttavia un carattere più ampio, estendendosi alle varie forme di “accesso aperto” alla conoscenza, come le opere rilasciate con una licenza Creative Commons. Incluse in questa accezione di “pubblico dominio” sono anche le eccezioni e limitazioni al diritto d'autore previste dalla legge (diritto di cronaca, ecc.), eccezioni che nei paesi anglosassoni si articolano secondo la dottrina del “fair use”. Cos'è COMMUNIA COMMUNIA è il Network Europeo dedicato al Pubblico Dominio Digitale formato da 50 partner (università, NGO, aziende, biblioteche, ecc.), coordinato dal Centro NEXA per Internet & Società. Grazie a un'ampia serie di attività, COMMUNIA opera come punto di riferimento europeo per l'analisi teorica e soprattutto per l'elaborazione di policy relative al pubblico dominio inteso in senso lato. Ampliando senso e portata del pubblico dominio in senso stretto (ovvero le opere al di fuori della tutela del diritto d'autore per carenza di requisiti o per decorrenza dei termini), COMMUNIA si occupa di questioni relative a forme alternative di licenze per i contenuti creativi, al libero accesso alle pubblicazioni scientifiche e ai risultati della ricerca, alla gestione di opere i cui autori sono sconosciuti, ovvero le cosiddette “opere orfane”. Progetto triennale co-finanziato dall'Unione Europea, il progetto COMMUNIA sta producendo anche specifiche linee-guida relative al pubblico dominio in Europa. Maggiori dettagli: http://communia-project.eu/ Che cosa è il Centro NEXA su Internet e Società Il Centro NEXA su Internet e Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente, fondato nel 2006, che studia in maniera multidisciplinare Internet, la “più grande invenzione del secolo” secondo il Premio Nobel Rita Levi Montalcini. Il Centro NEXA, che lavora in stretto collegamento col Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche dell'Università di Torino e col Berkman Center for Internet & Society della Harvard University, attraverso il lavoro di ingegneri, giuristi ed economisti si sforza di gettare nuova luce sui complessi e a volte dirompenti cambiamenti prodotti da Internet. Autorevoli personalità costituiscono il Comitato dei Garanti del Centro NEXA, tra cui il fondatore e direttore del Berkman Center, prof. Charles Nesson, il prof. Yochai Benkler, sempre di Harvard, e altri eminenti studiosi italiani e stranieri, tra cui il prof. Stefano Rodotà, l'artista Michelangelo Pistoletto e il prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo. Per maggiori informazioni: http://nexa.polito.it Contatti: NEXA Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) Corso Trento, 21 – 10129 Torino Ufficio Stampa: Anna Piccitto (+39) 011-564-7245 anna.piccitto(a)polito.it

Jan. 24, 2010

Re: [nexa] Google, China, and the future of freedom on the global Internet

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

Grazie per le tue preziose segnalazioni Berny-- Ho apprezzato molto il punto di vista di Rebecca, qui: "I'm concerned that in the name of protecting children, fighting terror and preserving the intellectual property and pre-Internet business models of companies with deep pockets and powerful lobbies, Western democracies are going too far in enabling censorship and surveillance, in a way that in turn empowers and justifies what the Chinese and other authoritarian governments are doing." Devo dire che alla luce di molti eventi di questi giorni non avevamo sbagliato a pubblicare su Il Sole il nostro punto di vista (sintetico e di certo non esaustivo) sui pericoli "per" Internet. Niente di nuovo per carità, molti dei temi sono stati oggetto di una pubblicazione presentata ad Atene nel 2006 dalla Diplo Foundation e trattati nelle molte interviste di David Dana Clark. Da (te)gli un'occhiata sul mio sito http://www.dicorinto.it

Jan. 22, 2010

: The Guardian Launches World Government Data Site

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/01/22/the-guardian-launches-world-gove…

Jan. 22, 2010

Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom Internet Freedom The prepared text of U.S. of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech, delivered at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. JANUARY 21, 2010 Thank you, Alberto for that kind introduction. It's a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. This institution is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I'm grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century. I'm also delighted to see so many friends and former colleagues. <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20> This is an important speech on an important subject. But before I begin, I want to speak briefly about Haiti. During the last nine days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we're facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. In the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector to set up the text "HAITI" campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text message. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people and it's raised over $25 million for recovery efforts. Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search and rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. These examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan the rest of us learn about it in real time - from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in that supermarket are connected in ways that we weren't a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity. As we sit here today, any of you - or any of our children - can take out tools we carry with us every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world. In many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable. During his visit to China in November, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity. The United States' belief in that truth is what brings me here today. But amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns and nuclear energy can power a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al Qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir - who is thankfully no longer in prison - is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and welfare of much of the world's population. SYNCING PROGRESS WITH PRINCIPLES On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone. Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. At the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the trouble of his day. Years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation - guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty. As technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the "inherent rights and dignity of every individual." And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century. There are many other networks in the world - some aid in the movement of people or resources; and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that's why we believe it's critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION First among them is the freedom of expression. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, email, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas - and created new targets for censorship. As I speak to you today, government censors are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. These leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc, and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain. The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided, and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum - where they belong. And the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls. Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. Beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day. As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran's presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman's bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government's brutality. We've seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation's leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening in their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice. All societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al Qaeda who are - at this moment - using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. We must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not alone. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune - or not commune - with their Creator. And that's one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. Today, they may also take place on line. The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the president said in Cairo, "freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together." And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out tremendous promise. We have already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals in different religious communities. Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information. Just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals' ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life. FREEDOM FROM WANT There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, talent is distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating, and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunity where none exists. Over the last year, I've seen this first hand. In Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30% since they started using mobile banking technology. In Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones. And in sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect to global markets. These examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world's economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the green revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. One World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10% increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost one percent annual increase in per capita GDP. To put that in perspective, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year. A connection to global information networks is like an on a ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. That hasn't happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today - many are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who've historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them to help lift people out of poverty. FREEDOM FROM FEAR We have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But some will use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our society to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance these freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear. Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. This is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of information networks. Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls migrate online. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe's Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. Over a half-dozen different Bureaus have joined together to work on this issue, and two years ago we created an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We have worked to address this challenge at the UN and other multilateral forums and put cyber-security on the world's agenda. And President Obama has appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that our networks stay free, secure, and reliable. States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society, or any other, pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all. By reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons. THE FREEDOM TO CONNECT The final freedom I want to address today flows from the four I've already mentioned: the freedom to connect - the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyber space. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate in the name of progress. Once you're on the internet, you don't need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society. The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest anti-terrorist demonstrations in history. In the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country's 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. The internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and extremism. In Iran, Moldova, and many other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy, and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. Even in established democracies like the United States, we've seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election... The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I recently heard the story of a doctor who had been trying desperately to diagnose his daughter's rare medical condition. After consulting with two dozen specialists, he still didn't have an answer. He finally identified the condition - and a cure - by using an internet search engine. That's one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important. APPLYING PRINCIPLES TO POLICY The principles I've outlined today will guide our approach to the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and interests that span the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country stands to benefit more when cooperation among peoples and states increases. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict drives nations apart. We are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for 21st century statecraft. Realigning our policies and our priorities won't be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from Washington was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, I have supreme confidence that the world can harness the potential of these new tools as well. I'm proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority in at the United Nations as well, and included internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the UN Human Rights Council. We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their right of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are working globally to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them, in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is proud to help promote internet freedom. We need to put these tools in the hands of people around the world who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, fight climate change and epidemics, build global support for President Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and encourage sustainable economic development. That's why today I'm announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can also address deficiencies in the current market for innovation. Let me give you one example: let's say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries on their responsiveness, efficiency, and level of corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy. If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments - all good things. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial incentive to pursue that project on their own and the State Department lacks a mechanism to make it happen. This initiative should help resolve that problem, and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We're going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we'll need the talent and resources of technology companies and non-profit organizations in order to get the best results. So for those of you in this room, consider yourselves invited. In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We'll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help to break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, and connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we'll work with the winners of the competition and provide grant to help build their ideas to scale. PRIVATE SECTOR AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY As we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we need to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms I've talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren't just good policy, they're good business for all involved. To use market terminology, a publicly-listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don't have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that, from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nation are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably reduce growth. Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent example of Google's review of its business operations in China has attracted a great deal of interest. We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make this announcement. We also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it's great that so many people there are now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. The United States and China have different views on this issue. And we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently. Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom; it's about what kind of world we're going to inhabit. It's about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that unites and benefits us all. Or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. Information freedom supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it's critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments - we do not block their attempts to communicate with people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lop-sided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements will escalate. I hope responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work to address such imbalances. For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground; it comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their information. Firms that earn that confidence will prosper in a global marketplace. Those who lose it will also lose customers. I hope that refusal to support politically-motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies. It should be part of our national brand. I'm confident that consumers worldwide will reward firms that respect these principles. We are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what's right, not simply the prospect of quick profits. We're also encouraged by the work that's being done through the Global Network Initiative - a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with non-governmental organization, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The Initiative goes beyond mere statements of principle and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks on internet freedom. We hope to work together to address this challenge. CONCLUSION Pursuing the freedoms I've talked about today is the right thing to do. But it's also the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to create a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together, and expands our definition of community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we're facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, protect our environment, defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can realize their God-given potential. Let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She is alive, was reunited with her family, and will have the opportunity to help rebuild her nation because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, group, or individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from our human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear their cries. Let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms.

Jan. 21, 2010

White House Mulls Plan to Broaden Access to Published Papers

by Chiara Franzoni

Mandatory release of social science papers ³could well result in the demise of the very journals that ... advocates seek to make more freely available.² Read all th Science article in attach. Chiara

Jan. 21, 2010

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

Jump to page: