- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Repubblica: "Guna, nel mondo dell’omeopatia vince la strategia del "copyleft""

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Guna, nel mondo dell’omeopatia vince la strategia del "copyleft" CHRISTIAN BENNA È il copyleft in provetta la ricetta giusta per prevenire e curare i malanni di stagione. Anche per chi investe fino al 20% dei ricavi in ricerca e sviluppo. Alessandro Pizzoccaro, amministratore delegato di Guna Spa, ne è talmente convinto da aver lanciato la campagna "No Patent" su tutta la gamma di farmaci sfornati dalla sua azienda. Ogni innovazione tecnologica, di prodotto e di processo industriale ottenuta dai laboratori della società milanese viene immessa sul mercato senza protezione brevettuale, come pure è copyleft, senza diritto d’autore, ogni nuova pubblicazione editoriale, scientifica e divulgativa edita da Guna. L’imprenditore lombardo motiva così la sua decisione: «Si tratta di una scelta di business, prima ancora che di filosofia aziendale e di responsabilità sociale d’impresa. Il sistema brevettuale del farmaco, oltre che poco etico, è anticompetitivo. Perché impedisce l’ingresso di nuovi operatori e non stimola l’innovazione, rifugiandosi nella difesa del brevetto. Noi vogliamo cambiare questo trend. Più concorrenza, più ricerca scientifica. Con un beneficio per tutta la comunità». [...] Continua a: http://www.repubblica.it/supplementi/af/2009/09/21/economiaitaliana/015kada…

Sept. 22, 2009

R: the non-confidential version of European Commission' Intel Decision

by Fiorello Cortiana

Antitrust: Commission publishes decision concerning Intel's abuse of dominant position The European Commission has today published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision, adopted on 13 May 2009 ( IP/09/745 and MEMO/09/235 ), together with a summary of the key elements of the Decision. That Decision found that Intel broke EC Treaty antitrust rules (Article 82) by engaging in two types of illegal practice to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). These practices harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors' ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel's actions undermined competition, reduced consumer choice and hindered innovation. On the basis of a significant amount of contemporaneous evidence and company statements, the Decision demonstrates how Intel broke the law. Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market by implementing a series of conditional rebates to computer manufacturers and to a European retailer and by taking other measures aimed at preventing or delaying the launch of computers based on competing products (so-called 'naked restrictions'). The Commission's Decision outlines specific cases of these conditional rebates and naked restrictions, as well as how Intel sought to conceal its practices and how computer manufacturers and Intel itself recognised the growing threat represented by the products of Intel's main competitor, AMD. Conditional rebates The conditional rebates were as follows: Intel rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 were conditioned on Dell purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs. For example, in an internal Dell presentation of February 2003, Dell noted that should Dell switch any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to its competitor AMD, Intel retaliation " could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]." In a February 2004 e-mail on the consequences of the possible purchase by Dell of AMD CPUs, a Dell executive wrote: " Boss, here's an outline of the framework we discussed with Intel. (...) Intel is ready to send [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel executive] /[Intel executive] to meet with [Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Executive] . (...) Background: [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel Senior executive] are prepared for [all-out war] 1 if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP [name of Intel rebate to Dell] for at least one quarter while Intel 'investigates the details' (...) We'll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Dell product series for corporate customers] , they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us. ". Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditioned in particular on HP purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for business desktops from Intel (the remaining 5% that HP could purchase from AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below). In this regard, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that " Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95% of its business desktop system from Intel ...". By way of example, in an e-mail written in July 2002 during the negotiation of the rebate agreement between HP and Intel, an HP executive wrote: "" PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5% AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement". Intel rebates to NEC during the period ranging from October 2002 to November 2005 were conditioned on NEC purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook segments from Intel. For example, in a May 2002 e-mail (when the arrangement was concluded), an NEC executive specified that " NEC will (...) increase [worldwide] Intel market share from [...] % to 80%. Intel will give NEC [support] and aggressive [...] price.". Intel rebates to Lenovo during year 2007 were conditioned on Lenovo purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook segment exclusively from Intel. For example, in a December 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive stated: " Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD based products in 2007 for our Notebook products". Intel payments to Media Saturn Holding (MSH), Europe's largest PC retailer, were conditioned on MSH selling exclusively Intel-based PCs from October 2002 to December 2007. For example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated: " It was clear to MSH in this regard that the sale of AMD-equipped computers would result at least in a reduction of the amount of Intel's contribution payments per Intel CPU under the contribution agreements (and thus in a reduction of the total payments received from Intel, even if the total volume of Intel-CPUs sold by MSH would have remained the same as in previous periods), although MSH never actually tested the issue with Intel.". Naked restrictions The naked restrictions uncovered by the Commission were as follows: Between November 2002 and May 2005, Intel payments to HP were conditioned on HP selling AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises, only via direct distribution channels (rather than distributors), and on HP postponing the launch of its first AMD-based business desktop in Europe by 6 months. For example, in an internal September 2004 HP e-mail, an HP executive stated: " You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high ". Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. For example, in a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop AMD K8 [notebook product] throughout 2003 around the world. We've been talking with them all the way up to [Intel senior executive] 's [...] level recently including [Intel executive] , [Intel senior executive] ... and [Intel executive]... . They keep pushing back until today, after the call with [Intel executive] this morning, [Acer Senior Executive] just confirmed that they decide to drop AMD K8 throughout 2003 around the world. [Acer Senior Executive] has got this direction from [Acer Senior Executive] as well and will follow through in EMEA [Europe Middle East and Africa region]". Intel payments to Lenovo were linked to or conditioned on Lenovo postponing the launch of AMD-based notebooks from June 2006 to the end of 2006. For example, in a June 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive reported that: "[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (...). [...] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (...) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (...) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD". Concealment The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example: The rebate arrangement with Dell was not subject to a written agreement but was concluded orally at various meetings. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP [rebate] discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement". There was a written agreement with HP but the relevant conditions remained unwritten. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that the " unwritten conditions (...) were stated to be part of the HPA1 agreement by [Intel executive] , [Intel executive] and [Intel senior executive] in meetings with HP during the negotiations; The written agreement with MSH contained a provision that the deal was non-exclusive. However, the evidence demonstrates that at Intel's request, the arrangement was in fact exclusive. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated that " It was clear to MSH that despite the non-exclusivity clause the exclusive nature of the relationship remained, for Intel, an essential element of the relationship between Intel and MSH. In fact, [MSH executive] recalls that Intel representatives made it clear to him that the changes in the wording of the agreement had been requested by Intel's legal department, but that in reality the relationship was to continue as before, including the requirement that MSH sell essentially only Intel-based computers." Other statements from computer manufacturers and MSH outline how the various Intel conditions were an important factor in their decisions not to partially switch to or buy more x86 CPUs from AMD, Intel's main competitor in the x86 CPU market. For instance, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that it " can confirm that Intel's inducements (in particular the block rebates) were a material factor in determining HP's agreement to the unwritten conditions. As a result (...) HP [Business desktop PC division] stayed at least 95% aligned to Intel." AMD's growing threat The evidence in the Decision indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD. For example, in an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that " AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors] . We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years." In a submission to the Commission, Dell also stated that as regards Opteron, " in Dell's perception this CPU generally performed approximately [...] better than the comparable Intel Xeon CPU at the time." As regards AMD's Athlon PC CPU, an internal HP presentation from 2002 stated that it " had a unique architecture", was " more efficient on many tasks" , and had been " CPU of [the] year [for] 3 consecutive years". The fact that AMD had improved its products is also recognised by Intel itself. For example, in a 2005 submission to the Commission, Intel stated that " AMD improved its product offerings dramatically with the introduction of its successful Opteron processor". This is also confirmed by contemporaneous documents from Intel. For example, in a 2004 internal Intel e-mail, it is stated that " Opteron is real threat today... Opteron-based single WS [Workstation] benchmarks beat [Intel's] Xeon in all cases." Procedure Before the Commission adopted its final Decision, it carried out a comprehensive investigation of the facts. During the proceedings Intel was able to comment fully on all the Commission's evidence outlined in the Decision. Indeed, the Commission went beyond its legal obligations in safeguarding Intel's rights of defence. For example, despite the fact that Intel chose not to reply to the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections (see MEMO/08/517 ) by the extended deadline of 17 October 2008 but instead sought to suspend the Commission's case, the Commission took full account of Intel's belated written submissions relating to the supplementary Statement of Objections. The full text of the decision, together with a summary, is now available on the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ict/intel.html 1 : paraphrase of original text

Sept. 22, 2009

R: NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital BooksSettlement"

by Marco Ricolfi

Tratto da? Brava Mariella! M. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Mariella Berra Inviato: lunedì 21 settembre 2009 21.32 A: J.C. DE MARTIN; nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital BooksSettlement" A proposito di Internet «Meglio una libertà sempre in pericolo ma espansiva che una libertà protetta ma incapace di svilupparsi. Solo una libertà in pericolo è capace di rinnovarsi. Una libertà incapace di rinnovarsi si trasforma presto o tardi in una nuova schiavitù" Norberto bobbio ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> To: <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement" September 21, 2009 Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement By MIGUEL HELFT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html For months, Google and its partners in a class-action settlement that would allow the company to create a vast digital library appeared unmoved by a rising tide of opposition. Google and its settlement partners the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers argued that the agreement would not harm competition, and said they were confident that it would be approved in its current form by a federal court. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Friday, made clear that the parties were busily negotiating modifications that would address some of the concerns raised. Those negotiations are likely to accelerate now that the Justice Department has said that it too believes the settlement raises serious legal issues and has urged the court not to approve it without changes. Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the governments intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly. The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now, said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it. Google, the guild and the publishers association said they were encouraged by the departments view that the settlement offered many benefits, adding that they looked forward to addressing the departments concerns. Clearly, the Justice Department is saying find something that would make this near universal library happen, said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. But Mr. Aiken said it was premature to discuss how the parties would proceed. The Justice Departments filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print orphan books, whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate. But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns. Laying out a path forward, the department said some of its antitrust concerns could be mitigated by some mechanism by which Googles competitors could gain comparable access to orphan works. And it said that concerns about the fair representation of some authors could be addressed if some rights for Google to profit from out-of-print books were granted only if their authors agreed, rather than by default. Legal experts suggest that proposal could prove to be a sticking point, as it would not allow Google to offer a comprehensive library. But even the Justice Department suggested there could be other solutions. Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said a judge was unlikely to approve the current settlement, hence, it is also very likely that the parties will revise the settlement in an effort to secure its approval. Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has given the parties until Oct. 2 to respond to the objections and has scheduled a hearing on the case for Oct. 7. But some experts say the case is likely to be delayed well beyond that, as changes to the settlement are likely to require members of the class to be notified, a process that could take months. And even after that, a resolution may not be immediate. Whatever action the district court takes, there could also be appeals, Mr. Gavil said. So I think we are probably still a ways off from a truly final resolution. _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 22, 2009

Nuovo libro: "Delete - The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDbsjwj2KOU Princeton University Press

Sept. 22, 2009

R: NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital BooksSettlement"

by Fiorello Cortiana

Mariella, Fai bene a ricordarci la saggezza di Norberto Bobbio in relazione alla natura aperta ed evolutiva della libertà. Il rischio che stiamo correndo è il passaggio da parte di molti, comprensibilmente sconcertati( e schifati) dall'offerta politica e dalla qualità esistenziale delle leadership, dall'afasia politica che l'astensionismo evidenzia in modo marcato all'oblio dell'idea della partecipazioe, del conflitto, della rappresentanza, della negoziazione: cioè dall'idea di una politica che viva la "libertà espansiva" come condizione naturale del proprio agire. Fiorello -----Messaggio originale----- Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Mariella Berra Inviato: lunedì 21 settembre 2009 21.32 A: J.C. DE MARTIN; nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital BooksSettlement" A proposito di Internet «Meglio una libertà sempre in pericolo ma espansiva che una libertà protetta ma incapace di svilupparsi. Solo una libertà in pericolo è capace di rinnovarsi. Una libertà incapace di rinnovarsi si trasforma presto o tardi in una nuova schiavitù" Norberto bobbio ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> To: <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement" September 21, 2009 Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement By MIGUEL HELFT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html For months, Google and its partners in a class-action settlement that would allow the company to create a vast digital library appeared unmoved by a rising tide of opposition. Google and its settlement partners - the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers - argued that the agreement would not harm competition, and said they were confident that it would be approved in its current form by a federal court. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Friday, made clear that the parties were busily negotiating modifications that would address some of the concerns raised. Those negotiations are likely to accelerate now that the Justice Department has said that it too believes the settlement raises serious legal issues and has urged the court not to approve it without changes. Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government's intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly. "The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now," said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. "The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it." Google, the guild and the publishers' association said they were encouraged by the department's view that the settlement offered many benefits, adding that they looked forward to addressing the department's concerns. "Clearly, the Justice Department is saying 'find something that would make this near universal library happen,' " said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. But Mr. Aiken said it was premature to discuss how the parties would proceed. The Justice Department's filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print "orphan books," whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate. But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits - most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer - could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns. Laying out a path forward, the department said some of its antitrust concerns could be mitigated by "some mechanism by which Google's competitors' could gain comparable access to orphan works." And it said that concerns about the fair representation of some authors could be addressed if some rights for Google to profit from out-of-print books were granted only if their authors agreed, rather than by default. Legal experts suggest that proposal could prove to be a sticking point, as it would not allow Google to offer a comprehensive library. But even the Justice Department suggested there could be other solutions. Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said a judge was unlikely to approve the current settlement, "hence, it is also very likely that the parties will revise the settlement in an effort to secure its approval." Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has given the parties until Oct. 2 to respond to the objections and has scheduled a hearing on the case for Oct. 7. But some experts say the case is likely to be delayed well beyond that, as changes to the settlement are likely to require members of the class to be notified, a process that could take months. And even after that, a resolution may not be immediate. "Whatever action the district court takes, there could also be appeals," Mr. Gavil said. "So I think we are probably still a ways off from a truly final resolution." _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 22, 2009

QdN: "Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms?"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/why-would-eu-sacrifice-internet-freedoms Act now! EU citizens must ask their ministers and EU Council representatives to adopt firm positions to protect citizens' fundamental rights and defend Net neutrality. Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms? Submitted on 21 September 2009 updated: Sept 21th.The list of MEPs that will be part of the EP delegation conciliation committee is now official. Paris, September 21th 2009 - The conciliation of the EU "Telecoms Package"1 will begin in a few days. 27 Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the executive branches of the 27 Member States will negotiate the text in closed-doors meetings. The outcome of these discussions will shape the future of Internet users' freedoms in Europe. EU citizens must ask their representatives to adopt firm positions to protect their citizens' fundamental rights and defend Net neutrality2. The Conciliation procedure regarding the revision of the five directives included in the "Telecoms Package" will likely begin on September 28th. Yet, one week ahead of the negotiations, the names of the 27 Members of the European Parliament who will be part of the committee are still unknown. Also, the second half of the committe is comprised of representatives from each 27 Member States for the Council of EU. These diplomats from Coreper3 will defend the positions ordered by the ministers in charge of the Telecom package in their home country. Both the rapporteur Catherine Trautmann and Åsa Torstensson, the minister in charge from the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council who will lead the negotiations, announced that they wanted to close the negotiations as soon as possible. They also expressed their will to only deal with the contentious "amendment 138"4, and not to discuss Net neutrality, which is very much at risk in the current version of the text. When at the same moment, in the United States, the Obama administration is making a radical move towards protecting Net neutrality5, their decision could have disastrous consequences for EU competitivity, innovation and citizens' freedoms. More than 50 NGOs from 12 Member States signed the Open Letter "We must protect Net Neutrality in Europe!"6 in less than a week. EU citizens can act now by inquiring after their ministers in charge7 on these two specific questions: * Why should the EU accept infringement on Net neutrality voted in second reading in the Telecoms Package 8 and how do they intend to correct them? * Why should the EU renounce to the protection of EU citizens' fundamental rights voted twice by the European Parliament in "amendment 138"9? "It is very important for the democratic process to shine light on this disturbingly opaque conciliation negotiation. Together, we can act to make sure that governments and MEPs cannot ignore EU citizens' fundamental rights, but also make them accountable for the decisions they make. It is crucial for European lawmakers to install a solid protection for Net neutrality." concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for the advocacy citizen group La Quadrature du Net. 1. 1. See our quick guide to conciliation procedure: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-preparation-for-a-third-rea… 2. 2. To learn about the importance of Net neutrality, read http://www.laquadrature.net/en/it-is-crucial-to-save-net-neutrality and our work-in-progress dossier: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net_neutrality 3. 3. http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/coreper_en.htm 4. 4. Amendment to the Framework directive stating "Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent." 5. 5. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125329467451823485.html 6. 6. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/we-must-protect-net-neutrality-in-europe-ope… 7. 7. Everyone can participate by filling this list of the ministers and Council representatives: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Contact_the_E.U_Council 8. 8. Universal Service directive, article 20.1.b (second paragraph) "information on any other conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications,..." and art. 21.3.b "inform subscribers of any change to conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications,..." Look at the evolution of Universal Service Directive on http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Diff_Universal_Service_Pa… 9. 9. Both in First reading, under the influence of the French Presidency, and during the second reading during the Czech Presidency, the Council rejected "amendment 138" without publicly giving any explanation.

Sept. 21, 2009

Festival del Diritto (Piacenza, 24-27 settembre 2009)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Segnalo che giovedi' ha inizio a Piacenza il Festival del Diritto, il cui responsabile scientifico e' il Prof. Stefano Rodotà (Garante del Centro NEXA): http://www.festivaldeldiritto.it Il tema di quest'anno è "Pubblico/Privato" (vedere qui sotto l'introduzione del prof. Rodota'). Tra gli appuntamenti piu' "nexiani", segnalo i seguenti (senza alcuna garanzia che non mi sia sfuggito qualcosa: controllate voi stessi il programma!): 25.09, ore 10:30: "L'e-democracy per i giovani" 25.09, ore 11:00: "Il diritto d'autore nell'era di Internet" (Buonomo, Gambino, Monti, Ricolfi) 25.09, ore 15.00: "Le tutele penali nel web tra frodi e furti d'identità" (Corasaniti, Lattanzi, Mandalari) 25.09, ore 17:00: "PA 2.0: cittadini nella rete" (Belisario, Calderoni, De Cindio, Guidi, Rossi) 25.09, ore 19:00: "L'algoritmo al potere" incontro con l'autore Alberto Abruzzese 26.09, ore 11:00: "Condividi la conoscenza. Le tecnologie per un futuro comune" (Cortiana, De Martin, Ferri Pancini) 27.09, ore 09:30: "Conoscenza" di Giorgio Resta ciao, juan carlos PUBBLICO/PRIVATO La dicotomia “pubblico/privato”, fondamentale per il mondo moderno, coinvolge vari ambiti della vita umana associata e interessa diverse forme di sapere, ma nasce nel diritto, da esso trae il suo senso originario e in esso si sviluppa come grande strumento di organizzazione istituzionale della società. “Pubblico” è lo spazio del potere legittimo moderno, che accentra, razionalizza, amministra, contrastando i particolarismi di eredità feudale. “Privata” è la sfera della libertà della persona e della proprietà che può esistere e svilupparsi nelle condizioni di sicurezza e pace sociale garantite dallo Stato moderno. Oggi i confini, una volta così netti, tra ciò che è “pubblico” e ciò che è “privato” si sono fatti confusi, porosi, opachi, rendendo talvolta indistinguibile o ambivalente la dicotomia concettuale. Le forme attuali della cosiddetta globalizzazione hanno liberato risorse economiche e sociali, ma anche aperto problemi difficili da affrontare con gli strumenti classici del diritto “pubblico” e tuttavia ineludibili. Allo stato attuale la distinzione “pubblico/privato” deve essere profondamente ripensata alla ricerca di un punto di equilibrio tra interessi generali e particolari, ragioni della comunità e progetti di vita individuali. Senza quel punto di equilibrio non si dà neppure la possibilità di una condivisione minima fondata sul riconoscimento delle libertà, in società accentuatamente pluraliste quali quelle contemporanee, caratterizzate inevitabilmente tanto da forti differenze e tensioni, quanto da spinte potenti all’omologazione e al particolarismo. Dai beni comuni alle privatizzazioni, dalla tutela dell’interesse generale alle nuove forme del potere, dalle banche alla formazione, dalla televisione alla sanità, alla religione: è di questo che discuteremo a Piacenza, per capire il nuovo fuori dai luoghi comuni. Stefano Rodotà Responsabile scientifico del Festival del Diritto

Sept. 21, 2009

Re: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement"

by Mariella Berra

A proposito di Internet «Meglio una libertà sempre in pericolo ma espansiva che una libertà protetta ma incapace di svilupparsi. Solo una libertà in pericolo è capace di rinnovarsi. Una libertà incapace di rinnovarsi si trasforma presto o tardi in una nuova schiavitù" Norberto bobbio ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> To: <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: [nexa] NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement" September 21, 2009 Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement By MIGUEL HELFT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html For months, Google and its partners in a class-action settlement that would allow the company to create a vast digital library appeared unmoved by a rising tide of opposition. Google and its settlement partners — the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers — argued that the agreement would not harm competition, and said they were confident that it would be approved in its current form by a federal court. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Friday, made clear that the parties were busily negotiating modifications that would address some of the concerns raised. Those negotiations are likely to accelerate now that the Justice Department has said that it too believes the settlement raises serious legal issues and has urged the court not to approve it without changes. Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly. “The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.” Google, the guild and the publishers’ association said they were encouraged by the department’s view that the settlement offered many benefits, adding that they looked forward to addressing the department’s concerns. “Clearly, the Justice Department is saying ‘find something that would make this near universal library happen,’ ” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. But Mr. Aiken said it was premature to discuss how the parties would proceed. The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate. But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns. Laying out a path forward, the department said some of its antitrust concerns could be mitigated by “some mechanism by which Google’s competitors’ could gain comparable access to orphan works.” And it said that concerns about the fair representation of some authors could be addressed if some rights for Google to profit from out-of-print books were granted only if their authors agreed, rather than by default. Legal experts suggest that proposal could prove to be a sticking point, as it would not allow Google to offer a comprehensive library. But even the Justice Department suggested there could be other solutions. Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said a judge was unlikely to approve the current settlement, “hence, it is also very likely that the parties will revise the settlement in an effort to secure its approval.” Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has given the parties until Oct. 2 to respond to the objections and has scheduled a hearing on the case for Oct. 7. But some experts say the case is likely to be delayed well beyond that, as changes to the settlement are likely to require members of the class to be notified, a process that could take months. And even after that, a resolution may not be immediate. “Whatever action the district court takes, there could also be appeals,” Mr. Gavil said. “So I think we are probably still a ways off from a truly final resolution.” _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 21, 2009

NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

September 21, 2009 Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement By MIGUEL HELFT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html For months, Google and its partners in a class-action settlement that would allow the company to create a vast digital library appeared unmoved by a rising tide of opposition. Google and its settlement partners — the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers — argued that the agreement would not harm competition, and said they were confident that it would be approved in its current form by a federal court. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Friday, made clear that the parties were busily negotiating modifications that would address some of the concerns raised. Those negotiations are likely to accelerate now that the Justice Department has said that it too believes the settlement raises serious legal issues and has urged the court not to approve it without changes. Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly. “The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.” Google, the guild and the publishers’ association said they were encouraged by the department’s view that the settlement offered many benefits, adding that they looked forward to addressing the department’s concerns. “Clearly, the Justice Department is saying ‘find something that would make this near universal library happen,’ ” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. But Mr. Aiken said it was premature to discuss how the parties would proceed. The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate. But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns. Laying out a path forward, the department said some of its antitrust concerns could be mitigated by “some mechanism by which Google’s competitors’ could gain comparable access to orphan works.” And it said that concerns about the fair representation of some authors could be addressed if some rights for Google to profit from out-of-print books were granted only if their authors agreed, rather than by default. Legal experts suggest that proposal could prove to be a sticking point, as it would not allow Google to offer a comprehensive library. But even the Justice Department suggested there could be other solutions. Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said a judge was unlikely to approve the current settlement, “hence, it is also very likely that the parties will revise the settlement in an effort to secure its approval.” Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has given the parties until Oct. 2 to respond to the objections and has scheduled a hearing on the case for Oct. 7. But some experts say the case is likely to be delayed well beyond that, as changes to the settlement are likely to require members of the class to be notified, a process that could take months. And even after that, a resolution may not be immediate. “Whatever action the district court takes, there could also be appeals,” Mr. Gavil said. “So I think we are probably still a ways off from a truly final resolution.”

Sept. 21, 2009

"FCC Proposes New, Awesome, Net Neutrality Rules"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://consumerist.com/5364181/fcc-proposes-new-awesome-net-neutrality-rules FCC Proposes New, Awesome, Net Neutrality Rules By Ben Popken, 11:46 AM on Mon Sep 21 2009, 2,701 views The FCC today proposed new rules to protect and preserve "net neutrality," the idea that ISPs must treat all users the same and not prejudice against different types of customers. In a speech, Chairman Julius Genachowski supported adopting the "Four Freedoms" first articulated by the FCC in 2004 not just as principles but as formal rules, and adding two more: "non-discrimination" and "transparency." The big networks are, naturally, incensed. More specifically, the new principles are: 5) Non-discrimination — broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. 6) Transparency — providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. And to recap, The "Four Freedoms" are: 1) Freedom to Access Content: Consumers should have access to their choice of legal content 2) Freedom to Use Applications: Consumers should be able to run applications of their choice 3) Freedom to Attach Personal Devices: Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes 4) Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information: Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans." With the fifth principle, it;s like they're staring directly at Comcast.

Sept. 21, 2009