skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An increasingly problematic aspect of free trade agreements (FTAs) is
the inclusion of investor-state provisions that essentially allow
companies -- typically huge multinationals -- to challenge
the policies of signatory governments directly. The initial impulse
behind these was to offer some protection against the arbitrary
expropriation of foreign investments by less-than-democratic
governments. But now corporations have realised that they can use the
investor-state dispute mechanism to challenge all kinds of legitimate
but inconvenient decisions in any signatory nation. Here's a good
example of how this provision is being invoked to contest a refusal by Canadian courts to grant a patent on a drug, as explained on the Public Citizen site:
On
Techdirt.
Just over a year ago, I reported on a remarkable speech by the UK Education Secretary Michael Gove that contained the following words:
On
Open Enterprise blog.
As Techdirt reported a few months back, the Supreme Court Justices seem rightly concerned about the "parade of horribles"
-- things that would happen if the decision in the Wiley v. Kirtsaeng
copyright case over whether or not you have the right to resell a
foreign-made product you bought were applied generally. In the oral
arguments, the line of Wiley's lawyer was essentially: nothing bad will
happen, because copyright holders would never dream of using the
decision to make outrageous demands.
On
Techdirt.
As many know, copyright had its origins in censorship and control.
But over the last few hundred years, that fact has been obscured by
the rise of the powerful publishing industry and the great works it has
helped bring to the public. More recently, though, laws and treaties
like SOPA and ACTA have represented a return to the roots of copyright,
posing very real threats to what can be said online. That's not because
their intent was necessarily to crimp freedom of expression, but as a
knock-on effect of turning risk-averse ISPs into the copyright
industry's private police force.
On
Techdirt.
Back in 2011, I noted
that one of the most significant achievements of the Hargreaves report
was its shockingly revolutionary suggestion that copyright policy
should be based on the available evidence, not "lobbynomics". The fact
that this even had to be said shows to what depths policy-making had
sunk - something clearly demonstrated by the disgraceful Digital Economy
Act, or the extension of copyright term for musical performances, both of which were passed despite the evidence, rather than because of it.
On
Open Enterprise blog.
Linux has a problem: it's running out of platforms to conquer. It's already the top operating system for smartphones and supercomputers,
and is widely used in embedded and industrial systems. It's true the
Year of the GNU/Linux desktop continues to be five years in the future,
but the rise of tablets makes up for that in part.
On
The H Open.
It would be something of understatement to say that the spiralling
cost of healthcare has become a highly-charged political issue in the US
(and elsewhere). But wherever people stand on the funding of medicine,
there is an implicit assumption that it works, and is worth even the
exorbitant prices that pharmaceutical companies may charge. Sadly,
that's often not true.
On
Techdirt.
As Techdirt reported last year, some copyright maximalists in the UK seem to be against the whole idea of basing policy on evidence. Last week saw the launch of CREATe: Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology,
a new UK "research centre for copyright and new business models in the
creative economy." One of the things it hopes to do is to bring some
objectivity to the notoriously contentious field of copyright studies by
looking at what the evidence really says; so it was perhaps inevitable
that it too would meet some resistance from the extremist wing of the
copyright world. What's surprising is that it seems to have happened during the launch itself, as Paul Bernal, an academic who was there, reports:
On
Techdirt.
Back in March last year, the Indian government announced that it was granting its first compulsory license,
for the anti-cancer drug marketed as Nexavar, whose $70,000 per year
price-tag put it out of reach of practically everyone in India.
Nexavar's manufacturer, the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, naturally
appealed against that decision, and the hearing before the India
Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB) has now begun. Jamie Love has provided a useful report on the proceedings; here's his summary of what's at stake:
On
Techdirt.
As regular readers of Computerworld UK know, the UK government has
repeatedly said that it wishes to move on from the past patterns of
procurement that have seen the UK spending far more on IT than
comparable governments elsewhere. For years the UK has been the IT
industry's dream: a rich but gormless customer that believes everything
it is told by suppliers, and happy to pay through the nose for projects
that consistently fail to deliver, assuming they are even completed.
Indeed, the UK government has become proverbial in the IT world for its
inefficiency and incompetence in this area.
On
Open Enterprise blog.
Five years ago, I wrote
an article about the relatively new class of netbook computers. I
suggested the ultra-low price machines running GNU/Linux posed a problem
for Microsoft. That's because it needed to charge something for
Windows, pushing the price of Windows-based netbooks above similar
systems running free software. As I wrote:
On
The H Open.
Copyright is sometimes described as a bargain between two parties:
creators and their public. In return for receiving a government-backed
monopoly on making copies, creators promise to place their works in the
public domain at the end of the copyright term. The problem with that
narrative is that time and again, the public is cheated out of what it
is due.
On
Techdirt.
Licenses lie at the heart of open source -- and many other kinds of
"open" too. That's because they are used to define the rights of users,
and to ensure those rights are passed on -- that the intellectual
commons is not enclosed. Their central importance explains in part the
flamewars that erupt periodically over which license is "best" -- many
people have very strong feelings on the subject.
On
Techdirt.
As a recent post noted, net neutrality
is under threat in France, with ISPs like Free asking Google to pay
extra for delivery of its traffic. According to this post on the Forbes
Web site, Google has already agreed to pay the French telecoms company Orange in precisely this way. As well as damaging the whole principle of net neutrality, something that Google has been championing for many years,
this would seem to be a pretty bad business decision. After all, if
Orange is now getting paid to carry Google's traffic, why shouldn't
every other telecom company out there also receive money for delivering
Google's services?
On
Techdirt.
Krita
is a fine sketching and painting program, but few would claim that it
is one of the big names in the open source world, such as Firefox or
LibreOffice. That makes the following recent announcement noteworthy:
On
The H Open.
As I mentioned
a couple of weeks ago, 2013 is already shaping up to be a year in which
data protection is a key battleground. That's been confirmed by a
flurry of stories around Data Privacy Day, which was yesterday in case you missed it.
On
Open Enterprise blog.
You would have thought by now that people would understand that DRM is not only a bad idea, but totally unnecessary: Apple dropped DRM from music downloads in 2009 and seems to be making ends meet.
Despite these obvious truths, the stupidity that is DRM continues to
spread. Here, for example, is a particularly stupid example of DRM
stupidity, as revealed by Manu Sporny:
On
Techdirt.
Back in April last year, we wrote about Colombia's own SOPA, the "Ley Lleras 2"
copyright bill (it's version 2, because an earlier attempt to pass it
failed.) This was rushed through by the Colombian government using an
emergency procedure so as to have it ready as a grovelling welcome gift
when President Obama came calling shortly afterwards.
On
Techdirt.
As Techdirt has reported over the last ten days, the death of Aaron
Swartz has provoked an outpouring of grief from friends and colleagues,
who understandably wish to express their shock and anger at what
happened. You'd expect that. What you might not expect is for a
Vice-President of the European Commission to add her voice, but that's exactly what Neelie Kroes did this week. Her post is short, and worth reading in its entirety:
On
Techdirt.
Posts
