Cher Wang, Chairwoman of HTC (source)
YESTERDAY we highlighted HTC's press release where it responded to Apple's lawsuit against Android [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (and few argue Chrome OS too, which makes GNU/Linux a target as well). There is some press coverage based on this press release, including:
Google launched its first Android phone in September 2008, and since then it's become a favoured platform for smartphone enthusiasts. Earlier this month Apple took steps to sue HTC over its range of smartphones with Google software over allegations of infringing hardware and software patents, but it's a platform that only seems to be gaining momentum over time.
Verizon Figures If It's Already Involved In A Patent Lawsuit With TiVo, Why Not Sue Cablevision For Its DVR Too
[...]
Ah, the patent wars. As you're probably aware, TiVo spent years fighting a big legal battle with EchoStar/Dish Networks over some patents on DVR technology. TiVo won big, and then immediately turned its patent lawyers on some other companies including Verizon. In Verizon's response to TiVo's lawsuit, it went nuclear back, accusing TiVo of violating Verizon's patents on DVR technology -- including a patent that the world's biggest patent hoarding firm, Intellectual Ventures, gave Verizon for the purpose of being used against TiVo.
In the case of GMOs we are dealing with a remarkable concentration of intellectual property ownership in just a handful of corporations. Like all well-endowed corporate actors, these companies do not shy from vigorously lobbying governments in favor of putting into place place legal frameworks that are designed to maximize profits and minimize caution.
[...]
If you google Ghana and genetically modified crops, you will very quickly run into the name Walter Alhassan, a consultant for the Accra-based Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), and a strong advocate for the position that Ghana's government "needs to speed up the passage of the Biosafety Bill to the global trend to improve agriculture and food security."
I'm conscious that I've written a lot of negative posts about genetically-modified organisms on this blog. That might lead readers to believe I'm against them. That's not the case: I am naturally pro-technology, and GMOs are potentially an important tool for addressing many of the world's most pressing problems. But I have my concerns, and I was pleased to find that Salon's Andrew Leonard not only shares them, but has expressed them rather well:I don't actually have a position on whether GMOs are by definition good or bad for the environment or human health or even the challenge of alleviating hunger in the developing world. My basic stance, in fact, is pro-science: I believe technological advances have greatly advanced human health and affluence, and will continue to do so, if properly regulated. My concern re GMOs has always stemmed from a profound skepticism that profit-seeking corporations can be trusted to responsibly serve the public good. One need look only at the constant stream of reports detailing unethical and criminal behavior by major pharmaceutical companies to realize that this is hardly a hypothetical concern.
In the case of GMOs we are dealing with a remarkable concentration of intellectual property ownership in just a handful of corporations. Like all well-endowed corporate actors, these companies do not shy from vigorously lobbying governments in favor of putting into place place legal frameworks that are designed to maximize profits and minimize caution.
The Swiss Parliament has just extended its ban on the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) plants for three more years. Originally enacted in 2005, Switzerland will stay GE-free until at least 2013.
Comments
Needs Sunlight
2010-03-20 15:32:36
Great things can come of the research, but corporatism must be kept at a mile or more away. Putting pesticide on crops is enough of a problem, putting pesticides inside the crops is a whole new level of toxicity.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-03-20 16:21:02