09.19.11
Posted in Site News at 8:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Goodbye to old Identi.ca (shown below)
Summary: Identi.ca returned to full operation late on Monday and it generally looks good. The upgrade took longer than expected and soon after this site’s return, the front end went down again for a couple of hours. We look at how this affects Techrights now that it’s all back to “live” mode with some bugs.
Identi.ca is a fast communication medium that many of us at Techrights use (personally I’ve used it for 2.5 years, longer than I was on Twitter). It has transformed into something more like Google+ or Diaspora rather than microblogging (like Twitter).
Identi.ca upgraded to a new version over the weekend and this affects how some of us communicate and how our IRC channels are run. Since yesterday, the rightmost sidebar column (along with ladder-shaped Twitter feed) contains more information of interest. it is based entirely on some Identi.ca feeds that bring information from somewhere out there quicker than blog posts can. The new Identi.ca seems to have not lost backward compatibility as Chokoq, for example, still works fine (without software updates on the client side) and so does the IRC bot (dependent on the new page layouts and APIs). One can see new features on the server/service side, but there are not so many of them. It’s mostly about improved usability and simpler conversation facilities. Experimental new features include data export (which seems not to work based on my tests). During the migration some metadata was lost, but it could be recovered manually (salvaged even) from cache. The timelines got a little too verbose and Identi.ca accounts are therefore getting a little too much input.
“It has transformed into something more like Google+ or Diaspora rather than microblogging (like Twitter).”We are not sure whether it’s strictly just one background picture for all users (standardised like Digg or Facebook, as opposed to older versions) and Twitter is not as well connected as before (there was a bridge to allow Identi.ca users to maintain a mirror in Twitter, but it is not available now, perhaps temporarily).
There are clearly some new bugs, e.g. in “Tags”, which won’t show up in anyone’s case and the upgrade did not migrate these data fields, either. But that’s fair enough, it’s a limitation of Web-based software and it requires ironing out.
The bottom line is, things are significantly improved following the upgrade and it was worth the wait (scheduled downtime). Because of the licence, it is the only such service we ever endorsed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Job cremation
Summary: The USPTO (shown above) comes under more fire as a so-called ‘reform’ fails to make it harmonious with science, technology, and human rights
THE USPTO IS happily granting software patents/monopolies and processing some patent-pending ones on green energy, demonstrating that it is still dissociated from the betterment of society and instead dedicated to protectionism.
The First Amendment is said to be violated by some particular types of patents, according to TechDirt which argues:
Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
We’ve been following the extremely worrisome Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services case for a while now. This is the case in which Prometheus patented some basic medical diagnostics tests, and then sued the Mayo Clinic for daring to do similar diagnostics without paying up. Tragically, CAFC, the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit, has ruled that it’s just fine and dandy to patent a diagnostic test. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on this in the upcoming term, and folks at the Cato Institute have filed a very interesting amicus brief, arguing that such a diagnostic test should not be patentable on two key points. I don’t know that it’ll convince the court, but they try out the argument that doing so would actually be a First Amendment violation, and even cite the famous Eldred case to make their argument (emphasis mine in the quote here):
As we explained yesterday, antitrust concerns too help shed doubt on the legitimacy of the patent system. Google may have bought some more patents from IBM (mentioned in the context of software patents in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]), but deterrence does not work when Microsoft uses patent trolls to wage anti-competitive legal wars. This whole systems looks more and more like s sham. Even NPR did a show about it about 3 days ago. To quote a part of it:
BLOCK: What is the broader goal in terms of job creation here?
SYDELL: Well, this is what they say. What they say is if we speed things up and we get that backlog cleared up, then there are all these startups that are just waiting to move to the next phase of financing and get their products to market. And they’ll be able to do that and they’ll hire people in the process. So that’s what they’re saying.
BLOCK: And what about those businesses, Laura, or inventors, entrepreneurs – do they think that the law will, in fact, encourage hiring, make them hire more people?
SYDELL: No, I’m not hearing that largely at all. I’m hearing a lot of skepticism about the bill. I think one of the problems that entrepreneurs and startups face is that there are a lot of bad patents that are out there, particularly in the realm of software and business method. And the bill doesn’t really do anything to address that.
So one of the problems that you have is you have a lot of these, they call them patent trolls. They’re companies that buy up patents, particularly broad patents. They buy them up and they go out and they sue startups and they demand licensing fees. And this has put a lot of startups out of business. And this bill doesn’t really do anything to address that problem.
The Patent Office has granted, for example, in 2000, they granted a patent for a method of making toast. Really, seriously.
BLOCK: Laura, what other solutions would there be to this problem of bad patents that you’re talking about that wouldn’t involve Congress?
SYDELL: The courts could step in. And, in fact, it is the courts who initially pushed to have, for example, software patents and business method patents granted. So they could pull back and there is some evidence they are. But I think it could be a long time before they address it directly. And people are concerned about that.
I think a lot of people wish Congress would revisit this soon. And they’re worried that because they just granted and created this new act it’ll be a long time before Congress steps in again, which really would be the fastest and most efficient way to address the problem.
BLOCK: NPR’s Laura Sydell. We were talking about the new U.S. patent bill that was signed into law by President Obama today.
There are more news articles about it, e.g. [1, 2], but only few mention software patents. The government which signed this ridiculous bill ignores the real issues, spews out a load of nonsense which contradicts research, and one GNU/Linux advocate had this to say on Saturday:
Patent "reform"? Not really.
From: Homer
Date: Saturday 17 Sep 2011 14:38:53
Groups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Apparently "patent reform" happened already, and nobody noticed. But
what exactly happened, and what effect will it have on patent trolls
like Myhrvold, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, perhaps the biggest threats
to Linux, Free Software and innovation in general?
[quote]
Late last night the Senate voted 89-9 to pass the America Invents Act
that would radically reshape patent laws, and President Obama is
expected to sign it without delay. It's the first such significant bill
in 60 years, and it has one key component: It moves the onus from merely
"inventing" a patentable idea first to becoming the person who actually
files for an innovation first.
...
But "first to invent" has some big pitfalls, including the ability of an
inventor to totally gut the hopes of someone else with a similar or
identical idea, and who then files for a patent--because the original
inventor, without necessarily having to make any move toward realizing
the innovation, can claim they invented it. A complex legal battle may
then ensue, and perhaps the second filer may choose to settle privately,
license the idea, or fight the situation in an expensive court case.
This trolling completely destroys the idea that a successful new thing
is built on 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration--a troll, perhaps even a
rich troll who's made money from previous innovations they've dreamed up
(or, more materialistically, bought from someone), can simply keep the
legal upper hand by saying they're the real innovator without actually
building anything.
[/quote]
http://www.fastcompany.com/1779071/first-to-file-a-patently-obvious-reform
Sorry (and excuse the pun) but this is patently wrong. Invention is
invention, not manufacturing; it's the idea (strictly - the method) not
the implementation. If you're not the first to have a particular idea,
then you're not its inventor. Period. This "reform" simply transforms
"invention" into a brawl, where being the first to find or create
something doesn't necessarily secure ownership - you can be mugged for
it by someone more powerful.
Is this really all the "America Invents Act" has to offer? Is this the
best "reform" congress could come up with? Pathetic.
/Real reform/ would have been a re-examination and redefinition of what
exactly is patentable, a more rigorous patent examination process (or,
let's be honest, /any/ patent examination process), and stricter (or
again - /any/) remedies against those who persistently file trivial
claims.
/Real reform/ would have made patents non-transferable, thus completely
solving the problem of patent harvesting by non-practising entities.
/Real reform/ would have made it impossible to patent something as
trivial and non-inventive as a "rounded rectangle" or a "record button".
But no, that's not what the "America Invents Act" has done at all. All
it's done is make innovation impossible for anyone who lacks the
financial means to bribe the USPTO, and allows the wealthy to steal
others' ideas. The US patent system was already an abomination, but now,
incredibly, it's actually an order of magnitude /worse/.
Apart from anything else, it seems to completely undermine the premise
of "prior art", since apparently the only thing that counts now is being
the "first to file", regardless of who actually came up with, or even
implemented, the idea first.
Consider the case of IP Innovation LLC and the Technology Licensing
Company (ex-Microsoft employees, and likely just two of Myhrvold's many
shell companies) vs. Red Hat & Novell, where the litigants claimed
they'd "invented" multiple workspaces. Of course, their definition of
"invented" was "harvested patents from Xerox".
Unfortunately for the patent trolls, those patents were granted in 1991,
some 6 years /after/ multiple workspaces ("screens") had already been
implemented on the Amiga, and so they lost the case. Indeed Commodore
implemented the concept as a commercial product in 1985, a full year
before it was even first implemented internally by Xerox PARC, and the
Amiga implementation was based on ideas devised by Jay Miner (of the
original "Amiga Corporation") as far back as 1982, some two years before
it was even first imagined at Xerox PARC.
But that prior art would apparently mean nothing in the new patent
regime, since neither Jay Miner nor Commodore thought to patent the
concept of multiple workspaces, despite clearly being the inventors and
first implementers of the concept. Xerox PARC was the "first to file",
and that's all that matters in a gun-slinger economy. Anyone with enough
money can now file patents against other people's prior art, use them as
weapons to extort money, from anyone - including the /actual/ inventors,
then pass those weapons on to other gun-slingers to do likewise.
Meanwhile those same gun-slingers remain free to claim "invention" of
every trivial speck of dust in the world, completely unchallenged until
they turn up in the "great" troll-friendly State of Texas, and either
win on the basis of the corrupt court's pro-patent bias, or bleed their
victims dry in the process.
So much for "patent reform".
It’s all about inflating the elevating the amount of patents (under the assumption that patents have real value, as legal types wish us to believe), but if the assumption is that this bill will give more jobs to patent lawyers, maybe they have a point. Just creating more and more monopolies is like overprinting money, which devalues the currency but works well for the mint. Watch McKool Smith in the news last week, pulling $391,000,000 from an actual practicing company based on this press release:
Attorneys from McKool Smith have secured a $391 million court judgment in favor of firm client Versata Software Inc., a pioneer in front-office enterprise software, following a successful patent infringement lawsuit against global software giant SAP America Inc. and its German-based parent company SAP AG (NYSE: SAP).
That is some really expensive “patent infringement”. Notice that SAP America Inc. is the target. The USPTO really needs to get its act together or go away. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Cablegate, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft at 3:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at cables where Microsoft’s Craig Mundie (one of the very top chiefs) is mentioned as involved
According to the following Cablegate cable, “Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China’s need to create an environment that would allow innovators to be financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They cited the need for real intellectual property rights…”
In other public talks, Mundie was bashing the GPL. It matters because Mundie is influential [1, 2] and he speaks to influential people (he is also among those attending Bilderberg meetings). The following two cables help us see where he’s making these engagements (see ¶7 in the first cable and 1045-1145 for the middle eastern programme in the second cable).
VZCZCXRO8717
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHGH #7085/01 3310818
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 270818Z NOV 06
FM AMCONSUL SHANGHAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5292
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0028
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0101
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0006
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0001
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0012
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 0020
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0642
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0001
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU 0331
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0421
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0001
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0004
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0001
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 0334
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0303
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0001
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0008
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU 0313
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 5610
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 SHANGHAI 007085
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
USDOC FOR 4420/ITA/MAC/CEA/MCQUEEN
USDOC ALSO PASS TO NIST AND BEA
STATE PASS USTR
USTR FOR STRATFORD/WINTER/MCCARTIN/ALTBACH/READE
TREASURY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
TREASURY FOR OASIA/ISA -- DOHNER, HAARSAGER AND CUSHMAN
GENEVA PASS USTR
PARIS PASS TO USOECD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], EFIN [Financial and Monetary Affairs], EINV [Foreign Investments],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], PGOV [Internal Governmental Affairs],
PREL [External Political Relations], CH [China (Mainland)],
WTO [World Tourism Organization]
SUBJECT: INNOVATION REQUIRED FOR CHINA'S ECONOMIC GROWTH
REF: BEIJING 23856
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The National Bureau of Statistics and the
U.S.-based Conference Board hosted a national forum on
Innovation and China Economic Growth October 20- 22 in Suzhou,
Jiangsu Province. During the conference, PRC officials from the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), People's Bank of China
(PBOC) and the Shanghai Stock Exchange, as well as
representatives of foreign multinational corporations, discussed
"self-innovation" and identified systemic changes necessary to
foster innovation in China. The systemic changes included:
increased IPR protection, financial sector liberalization,
openness to the world, and creation of a society in which
failure was acceptable. End summary.
---------------------------
CHINA: Big, but not Strong
---------------------------
¶2. (U) CPPCC Vice Chairwoman Zhang Meiying stressed in her
keynote address the importance that China's leadership has
placed on innovation. Zhang said that while China's total GDP
made it the fourth largest economy in the world, on a per capita
basis, China ranked only 110th in the world. This showed that
China was a big country, but not a strong country. According to
Zhang, under President Hu Jintao's leadership, China has decided
that the way to create strength from size is through self
innovation.
¶3. (U) Zhang said that rapid growth over the past twenty years
had placed strains on national resources that would lead to
decreased economic development. China needed to rely on
innovation to create a foundation for sustainable growth. China
had a low proportion of clean, high-technology industries.
China's leadership realized that the environment was not a free
commodity and that environmental damage would devour many of
China's economic gains. While China manufactured low-technology
items, it was dependent on other countries for its
high-technology needs. Additionally, China's consumption of
energy and raw materials per unit of production far exceeded
that of developed world and was not sustainable, she said. If
China did not develop its own human resources, China would
continue to be only the manufacturing base for the rest of the
world.
¶4. (U) According to Zhang, in major industries, such as the
petroleum and electronics industries, China was dependent on
imported technology for 75-80 percent of its needs. She said
that China needed to learn to innovate to create its own core
technologies. She said that China needed to "digest
technologies from other countries" before it could "re-innovate
these technologies for other purposes." China needed to
generously fund its own scientists to insure its "leap-frog in
development." She also criticized the "longstanding planned
economy mindset" in China that meant that companies were too
passive -- not taking on risks or investing in the future. As a
result, she said, these companies were not positioned for
success, and China lagged behind. Zhang's speech was widely
quoted and referred to by other government speakers during the
course of the weekend conference.
SHANGHAI 00007085 002 OF 004
-------------------
What is Innovation?
-------------------
¶5. (SBU) When asked how the Chinese government defined
"self-innovation," National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) China
National Research Association Secretary General Zhang Zhongliang
said: "China is a big country, but it has no power. China needs
to import 90 percent of its technology. China needs to develop
its own name-brands and self-proprietary technology so that it
can build a strong economy. To be a strong country, China needs
to develop its own innovative abilities."
¶6. (U) In his talk, Development Research Center of the State
Council (DRC) Deputy Director Liu Shijin outlined what was meant
by self-innovation. He said that the three kinds of innovation
are prime innovation, re-innovation, and the integration of
innovation from abroad into China. Liu said that foreign
companies with investments or joint ventures in China had
expressed their concern with China's emphasis on self-innovation
and begun to limit their investment in innovative areas. He
tried to put them at ease by explaining that any innovation done
in China by foreign companies located here was actually "Chinese
self-innovation" because ultimately these companies would
contribute to the building of China and its capabilities.
Ministry of Commerce Vice Minister Shang Ming was more explicit
when he said, "Self-innovation does not rule out the importation
of innovative technologies from abroad."
--------------------------------------------- ----------
Requirements for Innovation - IPR and Financial Reforms
--------------------------------------------- ----------
¶7. (U) Multiple speakers from Microsoft Chief Research and
Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua
School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China's need
to create an environment that would allow innovators to be
financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They
cited the need for real intellectual property rights to protect
innovation and a competitive financial sector that fostered
"innovations" such as venture capital and other mechanisms for
the efficient distribution of financial resources.
¶8. (U) People's Bank of China Vice Governor Su Ning said that
due to increased global competition, China needed to tear down
restrictions in the financial sector. He said that Chinese
banks needed to reform and innovate in order to increase their
margins of profitability. He also said that China needed to
reform its regulatory framework to allow for financial products
such as bonds, funds, options and other ways to diversify
financial risk. He stressed that China needed a unified credit
database to enable efficient access to financing.
¶9. (U) Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) President Zhu Congjiu noted
that while there was 30 trillion RMB (about USD 3.8 trillion)
worth of capital available in China, Chinese companies had a
"weak capability to engage in venture capital." He said this
SHANGHAI 00007085 003 OF 004
was why quality companies chose to go public abroad, rather than
in China. It also meant, he added, that 83 percent of all
venture capital in China was from foreign sources. According to
Zhu, the SSE planned to make the reforms necessary to keep
Chinese companies in China by creating an environment where they
would have access to the capital they needed domestically. In
response to a question, Zhu admitted that for the financial
sector, "innovation" actually meant reforming the Chinese system
to be more like the international financial market standard.
--------------------------------------------- ---
Innovative Translation -- Some Words Left Unsaid
--------------------------------------------- ---
¶10. (SBU) The conference theme as translated in English was
"Innovation and China Economic Growth." In Chinese, however,
the title was "Self-Innovation (Zizhu Chuangxin) and China
Economic Growth." Chinese government speakers all used the word
"self-innovation," but the translators uniformly translated it
as "innovation." Conference speaker European Union Economics
and Regional Officer Leila Fernandez-Stembridge noted to Econoff
that this appeared to be an intentional "mistranslation." Price
Waterhouse Coopers Senior Advisor Kenneth DeWoskin, another
conference speaker, speculated that a political decision had
been made to de-emphasize the Chinese-centric focus on "self" in
an attempt to soften the tone of the conference.
---------------------------------------
When Innovation Means Using an Airbrush
---------------------------------------
¶11. (SBU) DeWoskin noted to Econoff that the "palpable unspoken
undercurrent" had been the sacking of NBS head Qiu Xiaohua eight
days before the conference in connection with the Shanghai
pension corruption scandal. No mention of Qiu was made
publicly, even when Xie was introduced as only having been on
the job for a week. An NBS employee who helped organize the
conference materials told Econoff about the "huge amount of
work" that he had to re-do in replacing Qiu Xiaohua's
information and name with that of new leader Xie Fuzhen in all
of the many professionally produced bound conference materials.
An NBS press officer commented that his office had been given no
notice of the sacking and been inundated with "questions we
cannot answer."
-------------------------------------
Challenges Facing Innovation in China
-------------------------------------
¶12. (SBU) Sixteen non-governmental speakers at the conference,
including Sun Microsystems Vice President Piper Cole, GE China
Technology Center Managing Director Bijan Dorri, and The
Conference Board Executive Vice President Gail Fosler, China
were tasked with outlining how China could create and nurture an
environment that led to innovative people and companies. These
speakers described several challenges that China faced to its
SHANGHAI 00007085 004 OF 004
drive for self-innovation, including:
- China needed to stay open to the world. Innovation would be
greatly hampered in a closed system.
- China needed to avoid "nationalizing" or "branding" its
innovations in a way that would limit its global reach. By
creating a "China standard" different from global standards,
China would shut itself out of competition.
- China needed to protect intellectual property rights in order
to protect those who had taken risk.
- China needed to create the financial market conditions that
would support venture capital in order to reward risk takers.
- China needed to create a social milieu in which failure was
acceptable. If the price of failure was too high, no one would
take any risks.
- China needed to develop educational systems that continued to
foster interest in math and science.
¶13. (SBU) Chinese government speakers appeared receptive and
largely agreed to the above list of prescriptions. However,
they tended to stress the importance of Chinese brands and
standards being the mark of Chinese innovation. As one speaker
commented, "We hope that the day will come when the label does
not read 'Made in China' but 'Created in China.'"
¶14. (SBU) Comment: Innovation -- or self-innovation -- has
clearly been identified as the next necessary step in China's
economic development strategy. While the mission is clear,
China still faces enormous systemic economic, legal, educational
and social barriers to create an innovation-friendly environment.
JARRETT
VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB
DE RUEHC #2095 0361847
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 051838Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD PRIORITY 0000
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHDO/AMEMBASSY DOHA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHKU/AMEMBASSY KUWAIT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMK/AMEMBASSY MANAMA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMS/AMEMBASSY MUSCAT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 0000
RUEHYN/AMEMBASSY SANAA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 0000
UNCLAS STATE 012095
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECIN [Economic Integration and Cooperation],
ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet], MARR [Military and Defense Arrangements],
MCAP [Military Capabilities], PREL [External Political Relations],
XF [Middle East]
SUBJECT: GULF REGION COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE 2010 UPDATE
REF: 09 STATE 122229
¶1. This is an action request. See paragraph 6.
¶2. SUMMARY. Reftel announced a by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan, 21-23
February 2010, co-hosted by United States Central Command
(USCENTCOM) and the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF). Reftel
requested posts deliver a hold-the-date request to regional
civilian and/or government attendees pending release of
formal invitations. A separate notification was distributed
to military attendees through military channels. On 4
February 2010, USCENTCOM forwarded to posts, in care of the
security assistance offices, hard copy and electronic
versions of the formal GRCC invitations, along with RSVP
registration information and conference agenda, for delivery
to attendees. Invitations are co-signed by Commander,
USCENTCOM and by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JAF.
This cable requests posts deliver invitations and an update
notification to regional civilian and/or government attendees
to further highlight the conference and encourage
participation. In order to ensure timely delivery of
invitations, please deliver update notifications based on
receipt of, and in conjunction with, the electronic
invitations, and forward hard copy versions when they arrive.
Draft update notification language is provided in paragraph
¶6. END SUMMARY
¶3. For reference, the following is the text for USCENTCOM's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Mr. Communications Minister,
On behalf of United States Central Command, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
The conference follows last year's inaugural conference in
Bahrain. Again, our intent is to gather regional
communications representatives to collaborate on topics of
mutual interest in a Regional forum. Ministers of
communications, communications regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United
States communications representatives from the federal,
military, and private sectors are invited. Regional private
sector representatives will also be invited.
Conference participants will be able to address regional
communications capabilities and concerns and discuss
opportunities to support regional stability and security
efforts. The enclosed conference agenda is provided for your
information.
We would be honored to have you join us. Mr. John Simpson,
the Central Command point of contact (813-827-3931,
simpsoja@centcom.mil), will accept replies. A detailed
conference information packet will be sent separately.
With warm regards,
DAVID H. PETRAEUS
General, U.S. Army
Commander,
United States Central Command
¶4. Also for reference, the following is the text for JAF's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Honorable Minister,
On behalf of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
We believe last year's conference in Bahrain was a great
success, and we are looking forward to hosting distinguished
communicators within the Kingdom of Jordan.
This next GRCC will enable us, as partners, to continue our
examination and discussion of the Region's most significant
communications concerns. We are hopeful that this forum and
its actions will lead to improved capabilities, stability,
and security within the Gulf Nations and across the Region.
Communications ministers and regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United States
communications representatives from the federal, military,
and private sectors are invited. Representatives of the Gulf
Region's private sector will also be invited. The enclosed
conference agenda is provided for your information.
We would be honored to have you join us in the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan.
With utmost respect,
General
Khaled J. Al-Sarayreh
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff
Jordan Armed Forces
¶5. The agenda's structure and content reflect extensive
collaboration with JAF, including integration of
JAF-recommended panel discussions. Each participating nation
will be given one speaking part (seat) on each panel and one
speaking part (five minute presentation) during closing
remarks. All attendees will be invited to participate in
roundtable discussions. For reference, the GRCC Agenda
follows:
21-23 February 2010
Grand Hyatt Hotel
Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Sunday, 21 February
Arrival of conference participants and registration at Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Amman, Jordan, Telephone: 962-6-456-1234
1830-2000
RECEPTION (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and
distinguished visitors (DVs)
HOST: U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Monday, 22 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0905
CONFERENCE WELCOME (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier General
Ghazi Salem Salman al-Jobor, Director of the Special
Communications Commission, Jordan Ministry of Defense
0905-0910
TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT FAMILIARIZATION
0910-0930
CONFERENCE OPENING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Kingdom of Jordan
Representatives (TBD)
0930-1000
PRESENTATION 1 - His Excellency Marwan Juma, Jordan Minister
of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Sector Policy--Mobile Communications, Fixed Services,
and Regional Connectivity
1000-1030
PRESENTATION 2 - Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory
Commission
TOPIC: Regulation of Telecommunications
1030-1045
BREAK
1045-1145
PRESENTATION 3 - Mr. Craig Mundie, Chief Research and
Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation, United States
TOPIC: Cloud Computing
1145-1245
PANEL DISCUSSION 1 - Industry/Government Representatives
TOPIC: Implementing Cloud Computing Solutions to
Information Exchange Challenges
1245-1345
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications
Technology
1400-1415
GROUP PHOTO SESSION (Hotel Location TBD)
1415-1515
ROUNDTABLE 1 - Roundtable Moderator, TBD
TOPIC: Policy and Regulation Perspective--Improving
Telecommunications across the Region and across the
Commercial, Government, and Military Sectors
1515-1535
PRESENTATION 4A - Brigadier General Ghazi Salem Salman
al-Jobor, Jordan Ministry of Defense
TOPIC: Mobile Communications in Support of Relief Operations
1535-1555
PRESENTATION 4B - Brigadier General Mowafaq Assaf, Royal
Jordanian Air Force
TOPIC: Fiber Infrastructure in Support of Government and
Civilian Agencies
1555-1655
PANEL DISCUSSION 2 - Military Communicators
TOPIC: Mobile, Fixed, and Fiber Communications
1655-1830
FREE TIME
1830-1900
COCKTAILS (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
1900-2100
DINNER (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Tuesday, 23 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0915
ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier
General Ghazi
0915-0945
PRESENTATION 5 - Lieutenant General Carroll F. Pollett,
United States Army, Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency
TOPIC: Synchronizing Commercial, Government, and Military
Communications Priorities in the United States
0945-1015
PRESENTATION 6 - Mr Sami Smeirat, Chief Executive Officer,
Orange Company, Jordan
TOPIC: Regional Reach
1015-1030
BREAK
1030-1130
ROUNDTABLE 2 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Synchronizing Wireless Challenges and Potential
Solutions
1130-1200
PRESENTATION 7 - Mr. Nidal Qanadilo, Investment Manager,
Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Fiber Communications in Support of E-learning,
E-government, and Rural Areas
1200-1300
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
1345-1415
ROUNDTABLE 3 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Regional Fiber Backbone Solutions to Civilian,
Government and Military Challenges
1415-1445
ROUNDTABLE 4 - Brigadier General Donahue, Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: 2010 Conference Action Items and 2011 Conference
Theme and Topics
1445-1500
BREAK
COUNTRY REMARKS
1500-1510, Kingdom of Bahrain
1510-1520, Arab Republic of Egypt
1520-1530, Republic of Iraq
1530-1540, State of Kuwait
1540-1550, Republic of Lebanon
1550-1600, Sultanate of Oman
1600-1610, State of Qatar
1610-1620, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
1620-1630, United Arab Emirates
1630-1640, Republic of Yemen
1640-1700
CLOSING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Jordan Representatives TBD
1700
CONFERENCE CONCLUDES
¶6. Action Request: Washington agencies request posts ensure
delivery of invitations and deliver the following update
notification regarding GRCC 2010 to the appropriate regional
civilian and/or government attendees by 8 February 2010.
Please notify the USCENTCOM and State POCs in paragraph 7 on
completion of action by 10 February 2010. Email replies are
acceptable.
Dear (Embassies, please address invitations to appropriate
individuals listed),
ABU DHABI:
-- His Excellency Muhammad bin Ahmad Alqamzi, Chairman
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
-- His Excellency Mohamed Nassar Al Ghanim, Director General
and Board Member Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
BAGHDAD:
-- His Excellency Farooq Abdulqadir Abdulrahman, Minister of
Communications
-- Barhan Shawi Al-Tamimi, DG, Communications & Media
Commission
-- His Excellency Mazin Hashim Al-Haboubi, CEO Deputy for
Administrative Affairs
BEIRUT:
-- His Excellency Mr. Charbel Nahas, Minister of
Telecommunications
-- Dr. Kamal S. Shehadi, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
of Telecommunications Regulatory Agency
CAIRO:
-- His Excellency Dr. Tarek Kamel, Minister of Communications
and Information Technology
-- Dr. Amr Badawy, Executive President of National
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
DOHA:
-- His Excellency Dr. Hessa Al-Jaber, Secretary General
Supreme Council of Information & Communications Technology
-- Mister William Fagan, Director, Supreme Council of
Information & Communications Technology
KUWAIT:
-- Dr. Mohammed Mohsen Al-Busairi, Minister of Communications
MANAMA:
-- Dr. Mohammed Al Amer, Chairman and Acting General
Director, Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
MUSCAT:
-- His Excellency Dr. Khamis bin Mubarak al Alawi, Minister
of Transportation and Communications
-- His Excellency Mohammed Nasser Al-Khusaibi, Chairman,
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
RIYADH:
-- Mister Mohammed Jameel bin Ahmed Mulla, Minister of
Communications and Information Technology
-- Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Jafari, Governor Communications and
Information Technology Commission
SANAA:
-- His Excellency Kamal Al-Jabri, Minister of
Telecommunications & Information Technology
United States Central Command and the Jordanian Armed Forces
will co-host the by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) 2010 in Amman, Jordan on
21-23 February 2010. Formal invitations have been distributed
to you separately along with details regarding RSVPs and
registration and the conference agenda. GRCC 2010 will
continue GRCC 2009 multilateral engagement on regional
telecommunications and information sharing capabilities and
will foster cooperation among our respective entities in
order to overcome challenges, to include crisis response
and/or disaster relief missions.
GRCC 2010 presentations and discussions support a theme of
Synchronizing Commercial, Government and Military
Communications Priorities. GRCC 2010 adds panel discussions
to the GRCC 2009 conference format of presentations and
roundtables. Each nation attending the conference will be
given one seat for a national representative on each panel.
As with GRCC 2009, roundtable discussions will be open to
participation by all attendees. Each nation attending the
conference will also be given five minutes for one national
representative to present closing remarks. Please identify to
the conference co-hosts as soon as possible those individuals
who will represent (post, please insert here your nation) on
each panel and present closing remarks.
I encourage you to attend the conference.
Sincerely,
(DoS originator name)
(DoS originator title)
U.S. Department of State
¶7. CENTCOM point of contact for the conference:
Jim Ramirez DAFC
U.S. Central Command
Deputy, Strategic C4 Architecture Programs and Policy
Division
* (813) 827-5816 DSN 651-5816
* ramirejs@centcom.mil
* ramirejs@centcom.smil.mil
State Department points of contact for the conference:
COL Dave Huggins
Senior Military Advisor, Near Eastern Affairs Bureau
* (202) 647-3945
* HugginsWD@state.sgov.gov
Steve Simpson
Communications and Information Policy / Middle East
Energy, Economic, and Business Affairs
* (202) 647-5306
* SimpsonSC@state.gov
* SimpsonSC@state.sgov.gov
CLINTON
Yes, that latter cable is signed by Clinton. Interestingly enough, Mundie is doing politics. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 2:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Up-to-date screenshot of the homepage of the patent troll Microsoft is feeding
Summary: Microsoft’s Mosaid scheme against Android is reportedly seen by antitrust regulators, who are likely to step in
OVER THE years Microsoft has spawned several patent trolls, including the world’s biggest. It also tried to pass patents to patent trolls, but it got caught [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Microsoft is still a disgusting company that cannot compete and instead punches below the belt, just as it always has (there is a clearly documented history of it). Having hijacked Nokia (essentially a takeover, according to a Nokia manager), Microsoft now turns Nokia into a trolling powerhouse. Having faced probes over CPTN and Nortel patents, Microsoft may now be dealing with yet another probe for feeding an anti-Android patent troll [1, 2]. Well, it was very clear all along:
Mosaid Technology Inc.’s recent acquisition of key cellular patents could spark antitrust investigations in Canada and the United States, a U.S. newspaper has suggested.
The New York Post said Friday that the Ottawa patentlicensing firm is being used by Nokia Oyj and Microsoft Corp. as a vehicle to launch a deluge of litigation against Google Inc. and its massively popular Android operating system.
Mosaid said Friday it has no knowledge of any probes.
The Post, citing unnamed sources “close to Google,” said Mosaid’s acquisition of more than 2,000 cellular patents from Nokia earlier this month, with no cash up front and an agreement to make payments through future licensing deals, was a manoeuvre orchestrated by Microsoft and Nokia to attack Android.
“Mosaid can sue Android supporters for patent infringement without being counter-sued as it does not make any products,” according to one of the sources. “With Mosaid bringing the lawsuits, Microsoft and Nokia could also be shielded from accusations of anti-competitive behaviour.”
“Nokia and Microsoft patents were bundled into a Luxembourg-based holding company called Core Wireless Licensing,” notes Benjamin Henrion based on the article above. Another dodgy transaction like Novell's takeover? This is the topic one should speak about on Software Freedom Day, agreed Henrion, who also linked to this new page, “Dyson Says Patent System Flawed, `Trolling’ Bad Practice”.
James Dyson, founder of Dyson Ltd., talks about the patent system. Dyson also discusses innovation and his approach to design. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”
The real problem is software patents, not just patent trolls. This is why Google ought to have chosen a strategy other than deterrence with patents, which is ineffective against patent trolls. Let us see how the antitrust investigation — if any — goes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Cablegate, Europe, Patents at 2:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A couple more transmissions between embassies/consulates regarding “SENSITIVE” details from Brussels
According to the more recent Cablegate cables, harmonising patent laws — a process now known as “Community Patent” or “EU Patent” — is rather abrasive as a whole. Countries in Europe would benefit almost in no shape or form from it. Politicians worry that people will find out who benefits from this, mostly patent lawyers and multinationals to be specific.
To quote the cable from the Government of Italy (GOI), as it was posted yesterday morning, “THE GOI, MOREOVER, DOES NOT/NOT SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE GROUP TO PURSUE PATENT HARMONIZATION DISCUSSIONS. PRIGIONI NOTED THAT, IN THE GOI VIEW, THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE GROUP WOULD CREATE THE IMPRESSION OF A DEAL BEING STRUCK BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING THE LEGITIMACY OF AN AGREEMENT. HE PROPOSED INSTEAD THAT BILATERAL EXCHANGES BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS.”
In the following latest two cables from Brussels (2009), cable 1 states in ¶3 that: “Speaking at the post-Social Summit press conference, Dutch PM/European Council chair Balkenende said participants all agreed that “if we want a social Europe we need a strong economy in Europe.” Commission President Prodi underlined the need to actually implement the Lisbon agenda. With a reference to the persisting deadlock on the draft legislation concerning the Community patent, Prodi stated: “If we continue to decide by unanimity, the Lisbon agenda has no chance of being implemented.” Prodi also called for Member State budgets to reflect the commitments taken under the Lisbon strategy. Balkenende and Prodi underlined the role of social dialogue as being “at the heart of the European Social model.”
“Politicians worry that people will find out who benefits from this, mostly patent lawyers and multinationals to be specific.”The “Lisbon strategy” need not depend on the so-called ‘Community’ patent (a euphemism), which would only increase the aftermath of lawsuits. Cable 2 says in ¶4: “The Communication cites a number of problems for the shortcomings. It notes barriers to ICT business growth, wherein sub-optimal conditions for SME access to markets, innovation and finance, plus excessive regulatory burdens, prevent SMEs from expanding and growing their market shares more rapidly. The Communication highlights how fragmentation of EU ICT markets is also a key limiting factor for SME growth and innovation. The EU’s failure to achieve a real internal market in telecoms, and to standardize ICT regulation and IPR regimes, limit the ability of firms to grow rapidly. The Communication calls for creation of a Community patent to help remedy this situation. The lack of collaboration between public procurement authorities and those overseeing R&D and innovation results in many missed opportunities for innovative products to flourish.”
The logic here is very flawed. What they are trying to insinuate is that in order for businesses to thrive in Europe they might need a broader market like that in the United States. But to suggest that SMEs suing or threatening more competitors in more parts of Europe would somehow spur innovation is to ignore all the good academic studies (including empirical evidence) from the US — ones that suggest patents have only harmed innovation and continue to do so. The sacred cow which is patents is simply the wrong thing to blame here and to portray it as a gateway to success is simply to spin or lie for an agenda. Here are the two cables in question:
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 004741
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR DRL/IL
DOL FOR ILAB
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations], ELAB [Labor Sector Affairs],
ECON [Economic Conditions], EUN [European Union], USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EU SOCIAL SUMMIT RENEWS COMMITMENT TO
LISBON STRATEGY; LABOR AND EMPLOYERS SPLIT ON
PRIORITIES
¶1. SUMMARY. EU-level organizations of labor and
employers at a pre-European Council meeting with EU
leaders on November 4 reaffirmed their commitment to
the "Lisbon strategy" for turning the EU into the
most competitive economy by the year 2010. The
employers and unions not surprisingly continue to
have different priorities for reactivating the
Lisbon agenda. END SUMMARY.
¶2. The European Council meeting was preceded on
November 4 by a "Tripartite Social Summit," in which
the EU Troika (Dutch Presidency, Luxembourg, UK and
European Commission) as well as representative
organizations of the "social partners" (labor,
employers, "cadres" and employees) reviewed the
Lisbon strategy for turning the EU into the most
competitive economy by the year 2010. The Social
Summit heard a presentation by former Dutch PM Wim
Kok of the report drawn up by his high-level panel
on the progress of the Lisbon Strategy. The report
takes a gloomy view on progress made over the past
four years. It explains the EU's disappointing
delivery by the overloaded agenda, poor coordination
and conflicting priorities, and blames the lack of
political will by the Member States. In order to
ensure that Member States take up their
responsibilities, the Kok report calls for a process-
redesign along three lines: "more coherence and
consistency between policies and participants,
improving the process for delivery by involving
national parliaments and social partners, and
clearer communication on objectives and
achievements." The report rejects proposals for the
2010 Lisbon target to be lifted. It also states
that the EU should not become a "copy-paste" of the
US.
¶3. Speaking at the post-Social Summit press
conference, Dutch PM/European Council chair
Balkenende said participants all agreed that "if we
want a social Europe we need a strong economy in
Europe." Commission President Prodi underlined the
need to actually implement the Lisbon agenda. With
a reference to the persisting deadlock on the draft
legislation concerning the Community patent, Prodi
stated: "If we continue to decide by unanimity, the
Lisbon agenda has no chance of being implemented."
Prodi also called for Member State budgets to
reflect the commitments taken under the Lisbon
strategy. Balkenende and Prodi underlined the role
of social dialogue as being "at the heart of the
European Social model."
¶4. The President of the European Employers'
Federation (UNICE), Jurgen Strube, opined that the
sense of urgency with the Lisbon agenda must be
translated into implementation but called for the
focus to be on competitiveness: "All (Lisbon)
objectives are interrelated but it's important to
focus on the key drivers: competitiveness and
economic growth. ETUC Secretary-General John Monks
said his organization (the European Trade Union
Confederation) supported the Kok report as a
"realistic" and "balanced" document, adding: "We
know there are choices to be made, but the route is
not the same as in the U.S. What concerns us are
the "delocalisations" (out-sourcing), working time
related issues, etc. There is an agenda there."
¶5. A statement released by the Dutch Presidency
said the parties "reaffirmed their commitment to the
Lisbon agenda" as "the most effective means by which
to fulfill" the EU's economic and social objectives
"and thereby underpin the role of social dialogue in
European governance," adding: "All parties agreed on
the need to add a new impetus to the implementation
of the Lisbon strategy in order to bring about a
balanced economic, social and environmental renewal
in the EU." The contribution of social partners was
"essential in unleashing the potential for economic
and employment growth by finding the balance between
flexibility and security." Balkenende and Prodi
were said to have "expressed their readiness to
continue the debate and stated that they were
looking forward to a substantial joint contribution
from the social partners with commitments relating
to their area of competence in the context of the
Mid-Term review of the Lisbon strategy next spring."
¶6. COMMENT. Just like the members of the Kok panel
were said to be divided on the remedies to the
problems of the EU economy, the employers and unions
not surprisingly continue to have conflicting
demands on priorities to be addressed in the context
of their "social dialogue" at the service of the
Lisbon strategy: the employers are calling for
further liberalization, the removal of obstacles to
cross-border provision of services, and for research
policy to be tweaked toward boosting
competitiveness. In contrast, the ETUC calls for
stronger social cohesion "as an essential part of
Europe's competitive advantage" and insists that the
Lisbon process should not amount to deregulation,
weakening worker rights and protection, and cutbacks
in living and social standards.
SCHNABEL
VZCZCXRO5173
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #0399/01 0790718
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 200718Z MAR 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000399
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
FCC FOR WEISLER
DOC FOR ITA, NTIA - ALEXANDER, MAC - DEFALCO
STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EB/CIP, EB/IPE
PLEASE PASS TO USTR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems],
ECIN [Economic Integration and Cooperation],
EINV [Foreign Investments], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], ECON [Economic Conditions], EUN [European Union]
SUBJECT: EU SEEKS TO DOUBLE ICT RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FUNDING
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The European Commission released a March 13
Communication calling for doubling funding for information and
communication technology (ICT) research and innovation and other
steps to boost ICT in Europe. "A Strategy for ICT R&D and
Innovation in Europe: Raising the Game" emphasizes that ICT provides
vital tools to promote economic recovery and address long-term
aging, environmental and energy concerns and lays out plans to make
the EU the world leader in ICT development by 2020. The Commission
notes that the EU lags the U.S. and Japan in the proportion of R&D
devoted to ICT and the economic value generated by ICT. The report
cites regulatory barriers to ICT business growth, fragmented
markets, disjointed R&D efforts and inadequate funding for the
shortcomings. The Commission calls specifically for doubling ICT
R&D investment by 2020, to be matched by member states. The
Communication also calls upon EU institutions and Member States to
coordinate efforts to overcome fragmentation of ICT R&D efforts and
markets, to raise the number of ICT "poles of excellence," and to
set the right conditions to grow new innovative ICT businesses
across Europe. The new strategy forms part of preparations for an
EU research and innovation plan as called for by the December
European Council, and underpins EU efforts to promote greater
emphasis on R&D and innovation as a critical factor to speed
recovery from the global economic crisis. END SUMMARY.
COMMISSION PROPOSES ICT RESEARCH AND INNOVATION STRATEGY
--------------------------------------------- --------
¶2. (U) The European Commission released a Communication on March 13
calling for doubling funding for information and communication
technologies (ICT) research and innovation and other steps to boost
the ICT sector in Europe. The report follows upon a public
consultation, launched in September 2008, on an EU research and
innovation strategy for ICT, and responds to the December 2008
European Council call for an EU plan for innovation and research.
The Communication, "A Strategy for ICT R&D and Innovation in Europe:
Raising the Game," stresses the importance of deepening, rather than
cutting R&D support during the current economic crisis, and lays out
plans to make the EU the world leader in ICT development and use by
2020. The Communication underlines that Member States, EU
institutions and industry must pool resources and better coordinate
ICT research and innovation efforts to reach this goal.
EU LAGS OTHERS IN ICT RESEARCH
------------------------------
¶3. (U) The Communication notes that in the EU, ICT represents 34
percent of the two trillion euro global ICT market, accounts for 12
million jobs and generates six percent of EU GDP. ICT R&D accounts
for a quarter of all private R&D spending, a third of all R&D
employment, and fifth of all patents in the EU. Nevertheless, the
EU ICT business sector spends less than half as much as its U.S.
counterpart on R&D spending. The EU also lags other OECD members in
the proportion of R&D devoted to ICT, who on average devote more
than 30 percent of total R&D to ICT. The Communication notes a
growing deficit of ICT skilled workers across the EU, resulting in
"several hundreds of thousands" of unfilled jobs. Value added by
the EU ICT sector is only 23 pecent of total value added, which
lags the U.S., Japan and advanced economies.
¶4. (U) The Communication cites a number of problems for the
shortcomings. It notes barriers to ICT business growth, wherein
sub-optimal conditions for SME access to markets, innovation and
finance, plus excessive regulatory burdens, prevent SMEs from
expanding and growing their market shares more rapidly. The
Communication highlights how fragmentation of EU ICT markets is also
a key limiting factor for SME growth and innovation. The EU's
failure to achieve a real internal market in telecoms, and to
standardize ICT regulation and IPR regimes, limit the ability of
firms to grow rapidly. The Communication calls for creation of a
Community patent to help remedy this situation. The lack of
collaboration between public procurement authorities and those
overseeing R&D and innovation results in many missed opportunities
for innovative products to flourish.
¶5. (U) In addition, the Communication outlines how Europe's ICT R&D
landscape remains fragmented, despite new efforts under the seventh
EU Framework Program for R&D (FP7). Member State ministries
continue to develop R&D, innovation and education policies in
isolation, without adequate cross-ministerial consultation. The
plethora of varied EU, Member State and intergovernmental R&D
funding mechanisms also lead to confusion for innovators.
THE SOLUTIONS - GREATER AND MORE COORDINATED ICT R&D INVESTMENT
--------------------------------------------- -------
BRUSSELS 00000399 002 OF 003
¶6. (U) In response to these shortcomings, the Commission says Europe
"needs to raise its game." The Commission calls for a systematic
ICT R&D strategy that mobilizes resources and stakeholders along
three paths: raising public and private ICT research and innovation;
prioritizing ICT research and innovation into key areas and reducing
fragmentation; and facilitating the emergence of new public and
private markets of ICT-based innovations.
¶7. (U) In specific terms, the Commission calls for doubling ICT R&D
investment by 2020, beginning with a boost in EU-level spending
under FP7 from 1.1 billion Euros in 2010 to 1.7 billion in 2013, to
be matched by Member States. This could be accompanied by direction
of additional regional/cohesion funding toward ICT innovation and
research. The Commission urges Member States to develop more
public-private partnerships, to boost public procurement of
innovative ICT products, and to explore pre-commercial procurement.
OVERCOMING FRAGMENTATION
------------------------
¶8. (U) The Communication calls for a series of actions to better
coordinate its R&D and innovation policies and specialize its
resources. It urges Member States to work with EU institutions to
develop shared strategies and policies, to enhance the dialogue
within the National ICT Research Directors Forum and to work more
closely with ICT advisory groups. The Commission commits to
strengthen stakeholder groups and use instruments such as the ICT
Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) to bring industries,
entrepreneurs and academics together. Member States and regions are
urged to redouble efforts to develop knowledge-based innovation
clusters, and increase sharing of R&D infrastructures for sectors
that require large investments, such as nanotechnology and
high-performance computing.
FACILITATING MARKETS FOR INNOVATION
-----------------------------------
¶9. (U) The Communication discusses ways to facilitate the emergence
of markets for innovation, so that the EU can "produce and
commercialize the equivalent of its share in the global ICT market."
The Commission calls for both general policy measures and targeted
procurement as means to create more favorable conditions for EU-wide
innovation markets. Member States and regions should promote closer
collaboration between innovation users and producers across the
public sector. Governments should ensure interoperability and work
harder to promote common standards, and the Commission will work to
revise the ICT standardization process.
¶10. (U) Also, the Commission plans to support a series of
substantial pilot projects to deploy innovation ICT products and
develop new pan-European ICT-based service infrastructures. Among
these may be projects to focus on innovative ICT solutions for
sustainable healthcare or for energy efficiency, as well as an
effort to develop an electronic identity management (eID)
infrastructure, to increase the trustworthiness of e-government and
e-commerce services.
¶11. (U) Finally, the Communication calls for simplification and
streamlining of R&D administrative procedures, to cut red tape and
allow for greater flexibility in program procedures. The Commission
notes it will expand international cooperation on the largest-scale
ICT challenges, such as the Future Internet and quantum computing.
CONCLUSION AND COMMENT
----------------------
¶12. (U) The Commission's new proposed ICT R&D and innovation
strategy projects that if fully adopted, by 2020 the EU will have:
doubled its private and public investment in ICT R&D, doubled
venture capital investment in high growth ICT SMEs, developed an
additional five ICT poles of world-class excellence, to make ICT
research careers more attractive to bridge the current skills gap;
grown new innovative ICT businesses so that one third of all ICT R&D
business expense comes from new firms; and ensured that the EU ICT
sector supplies at least the equivalent of its share in the global
market.
¶13. (SBU) The proposed strategy is part of a larger series of EU
initiatives to boost the EU's innovative capacity across sectors.
These were triggered by the seminal 2005 Aho report detailing the
EU's R&D and innovation shortcomings. The new ICT strategy is
designed to build on the EU i2010 ICT policy framework, the
broad-based EU innovation strategy and ICT-related initiatives under
the European Research Area framework. The effort will need approval
by the European Council, which is likely. It is unclear whether
BRUSSELS 00000399 003 OF 003
this and other EU innovation promotion initiatives will allow the EU
to overcome the persistent innovation gap remaining versus the U.S.,
and in any case, will take time to show measurable results.
MURRAY
If there are any Cablegate areas we should explore more urgently, please leave a comment. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
