Summary: Apple’s cultural grip is expended with help from the Canadian government, which ought to reassess its commitment to Canadian sovereignty
Canadian politics have been a stormy turf recently. With the G20 fiasco pretty much revived, Hollywood trying to rewrite copyright law in Canada, and also a tough debate around the Internet, it becomes clear that Techrights will dedicate more time to covering degradation of rights in the largest American nation. “Canada spends tax dollars promoting Apple” claims this famous Canadian blog, stating:
George W. Harper’s weenies are spending God knows how many thousands of tax dollars contributed by hard-pressed Canadians, and blowing how many man-and-women hours on promoting a pure-and-simple Apple commercial product?
This is not entirely shocking, neither is it acceptable because Apple is a proprietary software company from a foreign country. More interestingly, however, should Canadian politicians start charging Apple royalties for free endorsement in phrases like “iPod tax”? How come Canadians use this phrase? Watch the images where Apple brands are being promoted in Canada, going under matching descriptions which name only the hypePod. From Professor Geist:
Earlier today I walked a few blocks from my office to Ottawa’s Rideau Centre to attend a press conference with Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who promised an important announcement. The two ministers stood in front of an HMV and a group of students wearing t-shirts with No iPod tax logos on the back to declare that they were firmly set against a massive new tax on technology for all the holiday shoppers in the mall. The Ministers claimed that all three opposition parties supported a tax of up to $75, which (reminiscent of the Dion “tax on everything” campaign) would apply to all technology devices and even cars.
There is more to portable media players than hypePod. And by the way, it is amazing that James Moore is still in the government given the notoriety he earned. Cablegate is guaranteed to shed more light on the outrageous copyright lawmaking in Canada, just as it did in Spain. Only a fraction of the cables was redacted and released thus far. █
Summary: A ‘free’ trade agreement (FTA) is being used to blackmail Korea into accepting the unacceptable, namely software patents
IT was only recently that the president of the FFII spotted a subscribers-only article and wrote:
US coalition asks for software patents in South Korea FTA, cites China and India TRIPS interpretation against swpats http://ur1.ca/2htvk
Thankfully we have some text from the article and with fair use doctrine we are able to give a flavour of it. “The article is copyrighted,” wrote an anonymous reader to us, “but maybe you could cite relevant parts of it,” said this reader, who had access to the text. They are “[p]ushing software patents through free trade agreements,” wrote a person who interpreted this article and here is the overall analysis:
According to the article below, a business coalition paper on IP issues is asking USTR to use TPP to:
-”replicate the IPR provisions of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, especially when it comes to patents and copyrights.
-go “beyond the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). For instance, it states that the TPP should outlaw camcording in theaters, despite the fact that the ACTA made it optional for countries to have criminal penalties for camcording.
-reject the “May 2007 compromise on patent provisions struck between the Bush administration and House Democrats, which weakened patent protections in FTAs that the U.S. had negotiated with developing countries.”
-include pharmaceutical chapter targeting the reimbursement policies of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand (PHARMAC)
-”demand that all TPP countries fully implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), something that New Zealand and Vietnam have not yet done”
To quote fragments from article “Inside U.S. Trade” (12/03/2010):
A confidential draft paper by a business coalition to advise the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on the intellectual property negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks shows that U.S. companies are fighting back against European Union efforts to protect geographical indications (GIs) in other countries.
Here come patents:
In provisions other than GIs, the paper largely urges the U.S. to replicate the IPR provisions of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, especially when it comes to patents and copyrights.
More on patents:
The Korea FTA was not affected by the IPR provisions of the May 2007 compromise, meaning that it contains what U.S. industry groups consider to be the highest level of protection to date. The paper does not delve into any specifics on patent linkage, data exclusivity and patent term extensions, which are the areas covered by the 2007 compromise.
Look who’s behind it:
This seemingly cautious approach by the business coalition differs from that of the Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), both coalition members,
which have publicly called on USTR not to repeat the 2007 compromise on IPR in the TPP negotiations.
The coalition paper was written by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), sources said.
Here come software patents:
The paper asks USTR to go beyond the Korea FTA in terms of computer implemented inventions, which are essentially patents on software.
This is how Microsoft extorts Samsung and LG (Korean companies), pulling money out of them for the use of Android.
Here’s TRIPS:
While the Korea FTA requires parties to uphold the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the problem with TRIPS is that many signatories, including China and India,
interpret it to mean that they do not have to provide patent protection for computer implemented inventions, according to the coalition paper.
More on TRIPS in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and here’s the next bunch of paragraphs:
“Thus, the language of the TPP agreement needs to be strengthened to specifically require providing patent protection for computer implemented inventions,” the paper argues.
The issue of computer implemented inventions touches on a larger debate on the scope of patent protection, one source said.
Patents clearly apply for new physical inventions or even a new process for performing a task. However, patents are generally not granted for formulas or algorithms, because that would be patenting knowledge itself, and would impede scientific progress, this source explained.
Outrageous. Recall who’s behind this. It’s not Koreans. On it goes, elucidating the US role in it:
While the U.S. currently grants software patents, some argue that these patents are essentially just the algorithm or formula itself, although written in computer code. If these software patents were all enforced, it could have the perverse effect of crippling the ability of different companies to innovate by devising new software, critics argue.
While companies currently amass these software patents, they do so largely for defensive reasons. Under this strategy, if a first company holding many software patents is challenged by another for infringement, it can look to try to find a case when that challenging company is also infringing a patent held by the first company, this source said.
This is untrue. Microsoft uses software patents offensively, e.g. against Linux and Android. They are just making up excuses for legalising software patents (calling them “defensive”, as if there is something about software which makes the already-granted patents inherently different).
What this amounts to is a sort of extortion and it helps show the US role in writing Korea’s law. Here is evidence of the continued attempts to impose US-style copyrights (the ‘Mickey Mouse’ law) on the whole world:
The draft also urges USTR to demand that all TPP countries fully implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), something that New Zealand and Vietnam have not yet done, another source pointed out.
Wikileaks has just unearthed another scandal. It’s just that, as Wikileaks helps show, Spain’s proposed copyright law was written by the United States. We wrote about it this morning while mentioning Amazon as one of the companies which set/write the laws in other countries like Canada (still wrestling against crazy copyright deform). Wikileaks has some ACTA-related leaks (cables) coming, so it is clear why US diplomats fight tooth and nail to take the site and its mirrors down (see the latest news below). Even France is now trying to ban the site, possibly because it turns out that Hadopi came from the United States. Sarko is being shown for the traitor he has been. █
Industry Minister Eric Besson wrote a letter to business and technology leaders on Friday calling for ways to ban WikiLeaks from using servers in France, local media reported.
In response to the “killing” of Wikileaks.org by the US, countless mirror sites are springing up all over the world. It’s impossible to authoritatively catalog them all—too many mirrors, and too fluid of a situation. But here are some active indexes, which appear to be dynamically updating as new mirrors pop up.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will fight any bid to extradite him to Sweden over sexual misconduct allegations, and suspects foreign powers are influencing the authorities, his Swedish lawyer said on Friday.
Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of “illegal” on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.
Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.
As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth’s “secrets” that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth.
From The Arabist comes yet another warning of the career dangers of a fondness for WikiLeaks in the form of an email sent to students of their School of International and Public Affairs…
Popular Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul is no stranger to breaking with his party, but in a recent television appearance the libertarian-leaning Rep. went even further than any member of Congress in defending whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
It’s been a long week for the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. Problems started to mount after Amazon and EveryDNS forced them to shuffle their hosting. While this was happening, they also had to face political posturing and arrest warrants. The truth can be a dangerous and wonderful thing.
Summary: Canada will need to decide whether its copyright and patent laws are determined by corporations in the country down south or by the Canadian people for the Canadian people
Canada’s parliament is currently struggling with opposition because people realise that copyright laws, for example, are being exported from other countries rather than constructed domestically to serve the interests of Canadian people, including artists (it’s not surprising if one follows the money). Yes, artists too are complaining about Bill C-32, the latest news on which can be found in the posts below:
I appeared before the Bill C-32 legislative committee as part of a hearing that addressed a wide range of issues including digital locks, fair dealing, and statutory damages. I’ll post the full transcript once available, but in the meantime, the video can be streamed from the Parliamentary site and my opening statement can be found below.
Much of the reasoning in that CMEC K-12 decision will be used by Access Copyright to justify its effort to extract $60 million a year from Canada’s post secondary educational institutions outside of Quebec. AC will surely argue that if a kindergarten student is worth $5.16 per annum, a university/college student is surely a bargain at $45/$35 a year or even twice the price. Moreover, AC will surely argue that if what a Grade 6 teacher tells her students to read cannot be fair dealing, then neither can what a professor tells a grad student to read be fair dealing – even if it is for “research”.
Like most students, I am dismayed by the claim that the so-called “education exemption” proposed in Bill C-32 will allow for the widespread expropriation of intellectual property, a falsehood repeated most recently in this letter.
If the Conservative government is serious about modernizing copyright in Canada they will need to learn the word compromise. This is the message being sent to Heritage Minister James Moore by New Democrat Digital Issues Critic Charlie Angus.
“The Conservative copyright bill ignores the needs of Canadian consumers and is a total attack on artist,” said Angus (Timmins – James Bay). “The New Democrats are firm in our support for consumer protection and artist royalties.”
One of the more interesting exchanges during Wednesday’s C-32 Legislative Committee hearing involved questions on the bill’s reforms to statutory damages. The bill proposes to establish a maximum statutory damages penalty of $5,000 for infringement that the court considers to be non-commercial. That contrasts with commercial infringement, which carries a $20,000 per infringement maximum. Note that the minimums are roughly the same – non-commercial infringement has a $100 minimum, while commercial infringement’s minimum is $200.
There is a world of difference between a “license” (which one can take or leave) and a tariff, which arguably has the force of law (leaving aside questions such as whether it was validly issued or whether an “interim” tariff can ever have such a force).
Thanks to Wikileaks we now also know how copyright laws are made up. From the news:
Spain’s Congress is about to vote on a new and extremely harsh copyright/Internet law. It’s an open secret that the law was essentially drafted by American industry groups working with the US trade representative.
But it gets gets more interesting: 115 of the Wikileaks cables intercepted from the US embassy in Madrid were tagged with “KIPR” — that is, relating to “intellectual property,” The big question has been: will El Pais, the Spanish newspaper that has the complete trove of Wikileaks cables release them in time to effect the vote on the new law?
Intellectual property policy has long been closely linked to U.S. trade policy, so it should come as little surprise to find that it appears to figure prominently in the cables obtained by Wikileaks. Although only a couple hundreds have been posted thus far, the Guardian has supplied a full list of all 251,287 cables. The list includes tags for each cable, so that the subject matter can be decoded.
Yesterday we mentioned Amazon quite a lot in the daily news summaries and in TechBytes, our audiocast. It’s the American conglomerate which is being slammed and boycotted a lot in recent days because of its actions (and then coverup) regarding Wikileaks. How evil does Amazon want to be? And the latest news is as follows (starting with PayPal doing the same evil thing):
PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We’ve notified the account holder of this action.
The latest cyber-attacks on WikiLeaks make the case for the EU to criminalise the software tools enabling such crimes and for setting up a 24-hour alert system where citizens and companies can flag up attacks, EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom has said.
GOVERNMENTS around the world today stressed that just because they are trying to crush Wikileaks to death, it does not necessarily mean that you will be next.
Of course the ultimate irony is Pravda justifiably criticising US for trying to stifle a free press in Valerie Plame, YES! Wikileaks, NO!
[Dr. Roy Schestowitz directed me to the TED TV interview with Julian Assange which is well worth watching.
As usual, for accessibility I’m hosting an OGG conversion here: Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
And this is the higher quality YouTube version:
[Thanks Roy!]
That last summary of Wikileaks news was written by Laurel L. Russwurm, who is a brave Canadian lady. She too understands how her country is being compromised by sources of illegitimate (and often foreign) power. Last month we wrote about the Canada-Amazon story [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], wherein it’s made clear that Amazon is distorting Canadian for Amazon’s own interests. The Canadians are fighting back against it and Robert Pogson, who is also a Canadian, calls it “Canada’s Bilski”. “If you can patent method A and method B,” he writes, “Is method A+B patentable? What about A-B? Wake up, commissioner!”
For example, even the famous Amazon.com 1-click patent has a limitation requiring a ‘response to only a single action being performed.’ The user necessarily is the one who performs this ‘single action’ after going to the web page and searching for the item. If simple user involvement were enough to give rise to divided infringement, few, if any, software patents could be infringed.
A Groklaw-hostile site, ipwars.com, has this post titled “Business method patents before the Commissioner”:
The Deputy Commissioner did not think that reciting in a computer to do all the calculations helped. The change in state or information in the computer was not sufficiently substantial to secure a patent.
To clarify, software patents and business method patents are not entirely separable. This is why In Re Bilski mattered so much and there might be a ‘second Bilski’ even in the United States where Microsoft Office is at risk of embargo. We shall cover that later. █
Resumen: La gente en Occidente debe estar agradecida a la India por hacer lo que la gente ilustrada hace, en lugar de la gente codiciosa para facilitar el progreso y la solidaridad.
A principios de mes que escribió sobre la India lecciones de RAND[http://techrights.org/2010/11/21/india-rand-es/] (también disponible en español[http://techrights.org/2010/11/21/india-rand-es/]). Varios autores lo consideran un ejemplo para Europa a seguir y la FSFE Fundación Europea de Software Libre escribió sobre esto[http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/?p=420]. Opensource.com de Red Hat tiene un artículo sobre el tema[http://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey?sc_cid=70160000000IDmjAAG] y “cómo él Este ganó” Glyn Moody etiqueto/comentó al respecto:
“La semana pasada, la India se convirtió en otro de los principales países a unirse al creciente movimiento global de normas abiertas. Después de tres años de intenso debate y discusión, el Departamento de TI (Tecnología Informática) de la India finalizó su política en materia de estándares abiertos para el e-Gobierno, uniéndose a las filas de las emergentes economías como Brasil, Sudáfrica y otros. Este es un momento histórico y el Departamento de la India de Tecnología de la Información (DIT) merece felicitaciones por la aprobación de una política que asegura la conservación a largo plazo de los datos de la India del gobierno electrónico.
Una gran victoria para la comunidad de código abierto es que la política ahora dice: “4.1.2 Las solicitudes de patentes necesarias para aplicar la Norma identificada se pondrá a disposición de manera libre de regalías por la vida útil de la norma.”
Esta victoria es muy importante para la comunidad de código abierto porque de código abierto y estándares abiertos tienen una relación simbiótica. Mientras que el código abierto nos dá la libertad de modificar, compartir y redistribuir el código fuente del software, los estándares abiertos se refieren a la libertad de codificar y decodificar datos y protocolos de redes. Una libertad sin la otra es una libertad limitada.”-LEASE: NO ES LIBERTAD-
“Los mandatos de la India abre los estándares de TI Tecnología Informática mientras crecen los temores sobre la política de la UE Unión Europea” fue el titular de PC Semanal (publicación británica)[http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/11/19/244014/India-mandates-open-IT-standards-as-fears-grow-over-EU.htm]. Hay muchos grupos de presión de Microsoft y mobbyists presionando por RAND “Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias en Europa y vamos a tener un post acerca de esto.
“El gobierno de la India ha ordenado estándares abiertos para todos sus sistemas de TI Tecnología Informática como los temores de que su equivalente en Europa, Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad ha sido secuestrado por los titulares de derechos.
La política de India ordena a los titulares de patentes de software a renunciar a cualquier derecho de regalías que tengan sobre las normas de interoperabilidad. Si los titulares de derechos se niegan, sus normas, simplemente no se van a utilizar en los sistemas de gobierno.”
Por otra parte, un blog acerca de monopolios intelectuales en la India escribió acerca de una “victoria de los autores para las Personas con Discapacidad”[http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/11/special-copyright-victory-for-disabled.html], que ayuda a mostrar otra área donde las políticas de monopolio intelectual de la India están por delante de los que se encuentran en el Oeste (por delante como en la más sana y humana).
Prashant recientemente puso de relieve las principales conclusiones de una comisión permanente del Parlamento constituido para estudiar el proyecto de modificación de los derechos de autor. En particular, el informe se presenta como una gran victoria a dos grupos de interesados, a saber, la industria de películas/artistas de la música, por un lado (compositores y letristas que ahora puede reclamar un canon buena un 50% en todas las explotaciones de su trabajo, sin perjuicio de las asignaciones) y las comunidades con discapacidad o capacidades diferentes, por el otro.
Permítanme centrarme en el sector de la discapacidad en esta nota. Voy a dejar las recomendaciones relativas a los compositores de música y letristas (un aspecto sobre el que había escrito varias veces en el pasado) a un puesto más adelante.
Nuestros mensajes anteriores destacó la insuficiencia grave de la “discapacidad” excepción tratado de ser tallado en el proyecto de ley de derechos de autor. En particular, el hecho de que la excepción propuesta se limitaba a las conversiones de las obras con derechos de autor sólo a los formatos “especiales”.
Vea lo que Stevie Wonder tuvo que decir sobre el tema[http://techrights.org/2010/09/22/fsf-swpats-australia-and-wipo/]. El cártel de los derechos de autor es mucho más fuerte en donde vive. De nuevo, felicitaciones a la India para mostrar la manera correcta de lidiar con patentes de software y dando un ejemplo a Europa y el resto del mundo.
Eduardo Landaveri adds (in English):
India has shown to the world what really RAND should be: ROYALTY FREE and NON-EXCLUSIVE:
“India’s policy orders software patent holders to give up any royalty rights they have over interoperability standards. If rights holders refuse, their standards simply won’t be used in government systems.”[http://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey?sc_cid=70160000000IDmjAAG] -It’s really FRAND because it doesn’t exclude other small && medium size players or even individuals to access FREELY E-Government data.
Here it applies what Armstrong said “It’s a small step for a man but a huge leap to humankind” because it ensures the future generations have really choice and free access to their OWN government and personal data without depending on third multinational companies that would be squeezing them from their money for their OWN right to do it.
India is shaking off the heavy shackles of Colonialism by saying enough is enough. They got tired how big multinationals companies have been appropriating from their riches. Latin America, Africa and not only Europe should learn the lesson and not forget how this multinationals have been robbing them and their children from their rich cultural and intellectual heritage. To show just two samples Colgate misappropriate an Indian millenarian formula to clean up teeth[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/10501311526/colgate-patents-traditional-indian-tooth-cleaning-powder-despite-it-being-used-for-thousands-of-years.shtml]. Another example would be USTPO Patent 6093421 and others that would restrict Peruvian Indigenous people and farmes to export maca extracts of Peruvian origin[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/194/01/macafinal1.pdf&rct=j&q=Maca being patented&ei=30jxTNfjFJG2sAOUneGmCw&usg=AFQjCNHSG4lIwU9UF52v6c3j4KcBlI-yew&cad=rja].
This is how foreign companies are taking ownership of traditional Third World countries crops like quinoa, maca and others besides the Indian traditional medicines. With India, Brazil, and South Africa as examples, it’s time for us Latino American countries to say enough is enough and reject any treaty that gives preference to pharmaceutical patents and specially software patents. Have we learned for history and four hundred years of domination? First came the Spaniards, then the British Companies and later the American Companies. For how long more we should give up our sovereignty?
If we submit what would be when our children grow up and want to develop new technologies benefiting humankind but have to decline due to software patents. We would tied them off as people used to sell their own children to slavery. We would need to pay to access our own government data because the application which create them was a proprietary one.
Open, royalty free and non-exclusive standards ensure true democracy and openess from part of our governments by allowing their citizens to access any government document freely and democratic without imposing them to buy certain office application to do it, or to pay a multinational company for their right to do it because they “own” the standard.
In the US education system, schools pays between $40 and $50 for each copy of Microsoft Office and the School districts pay without hesitating because they’re “saving” money. Once those indoctrinated children grow up you tell them write a report, they will answer: “I don’t know to use anything but MS Word”. And that ladies and gentlemen is a big business for Microsoft. That’s why a US high school graduate falls way behind others from graduates from other countries. Latin American, African countries do we want the same for our children? Absolutely NOT! So let’s stop software patents by being imposed by Microsoft and its corporate minions. Let us follow India’s example to digital independence.
People of India, hats off to you!
Or in Spanish:
La India ha mostrado al mundo lo que realmente RAND debe ser: libre de regalías y no exclusiva:
“La política de India ordena a los titulares de patentes de software a renunciar a cualquier derecho de regalías que tengan sobre las normas de interoperabilidad. Si los titulares de derechos se niegan, sus normas, simplemente no se van a utilizar en los sistemas de gobierno.”[http://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey?sc_cid=70160000000IDmjAAG]
Son realmente justas, razonables y no discriminatorias, ya que no va a excluir a otros jugadores de tamaño pequeño y medio y ni siquiera las personas a acceder libremente a los datos de E-Gobierno.
Aquí se aplica lo que Armstrong dijo: “Es un pequeño paso para un hombre pero un gran salto para la humanidad”, ya que garantiza a las generaciones futuras tengan libre acceso to acceder a los datos gobierno-electronico de su propio gobierno y los datos personales sin depender de terceras empresas multinacionales que los aprieta por su dinero, por su propio derecho a hacerlo.
India está sacudiendo las cadenas pesadas del Colonialismo diciendo basta. Se cansaron cómo las grandes empresas multinacionales han sido apropiarse de sus riquezas. América Latina, África y Europa no sólo debe aprender la lección y no olvidar cómo las multinacionales han estado robando a ellos ya sus hijos de su rico patrimonio cultural e intelectual. Para mostrar sólo dos muestras, como Colgate se ha apropiado de una India fórmula milenaria para limpiar los dientes [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/10501311526/colgate-patents-traditional-indian-tooth-cleaning-powder-despite-it-being utilizados por]-miles-de-years.shtml. Otro ejemplo sería USTPO patente 6093421 y otros que tienden a limitar pueblos indígenas y agricultores en Perú para exportar extractos de maca peruana http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http de origen [ : / / www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/194/01/macafinal1.pdf&rct=j&q=Maca siendo patentado y ei = 30jxTNfjFJG2sAOUneGmCw & usg = AFQjCNHSG4lIwU9UF52v6c3j4KcBlI-tejo y cad = RJA].
Así es como las empresas extranjeras están obteniendo la propiedad de los cultivos tradicionales de países del Tercer Mundo como la quinua, maca y otros, además de las medicinas tradicionales de la India. Con la India, Brasil y Sudáfrica como ejemplo, es el momento para nosotros los países de América Latina a decir basta y rechazar cualquier tratado que da preferencia a las patentes farmacéuticas y en especial las patentes de software. ¿Hemos aprendido de la historia y 400 años de dominación? Primero llegaron los españoles, a continuación, las empresas británicas y más tarde las empresas estadounidenses. ¿Por cuánto tiempo más debemos renunciar a nuestra soberanía?
Si nos sometemos que será cuando nuestros hijos crezcan y quieran desarrollar nuevas tecnologías beneficiar a la humanidad, pero que seran impedido de hacerlo debido a las patentes de software. Nosotros les ataremos las manos como la gente solía vender sus propios hijos a la esclavitud. Tendríamos que pagar para acceder a nuestros datos propio gobierno porque la aplicación que los creo era una aplicación proprientaria.
Los estándares abiertos, libres de regalías garantizan una verdadera democracia y apertura de parte de nuestros gobiernos, al permitir a sus ciudadanos a acceder a cualquier documento del gobierno libre y democráticamente sin imponer a comprar ciertas aplicaciones de oficina para hacerlo, o para pagar a una compañía multinacional por su derecho a hacerlo porque “es dueña” de la norma.
En el sistema educativo de EE.UU., las escuelas pagan entre $ 40 y $ 50 por cada copia de Microsoft Office y los distritos escolares lo hacen sin vacilar, porque estan “ahorrando” dinero. Una vez que los niños adoctrinados crecen les pides escribir un informe, que será la respuesta: “Yo no sé usar nada más que MS Word”. Lo que las señoras y señores es un gran negocio para Microsoft. Es por eso que un graduado de la escuela secundaria EE.UU. cae muy por detrás de otros de los graduados de otros países. América Latina, países Africanos queremos lo mismo para nuestros hijos? Absolutamente NO! Así que rechazemos las patentes de software ser impuestas por Microsoft y sus secuaces corporativos. !Sigamos el ejemplo de la India a la independencia digital!
Pueblo de La India, me saco el sombrero delante de ustedes!
Eduardo’s translations hopefully broaden the reach of this information. █
Last week, India became another major country to join the growing, global open standards movement. After three years of intense debate and discussion, India’s Department of IT in India finalized its Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, joining the ranks of emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa and others. This is a historic moment and India’s Department of Information Technology (DIT) deserves congratulations for approving a policy that will ensure the long-term preservation of India’s e-government data.
A major victory for the Open Source community is that the policy now says, “4.1.2 The Patent claims necessary to implement the Identified Standard shall be made available on a Royalty-Free basis for the life time of the Standard.”
This victory is really important to the open source community because open source and open standards have a symbiotic relationship. While open source is the freedom to modify, share and redistribute software source code, open standards refer to the freedom to encode and decode data and network protocols. One freedom without the other is a limited freedom.
“India mandates open IT standards as fears grow over EU policy” was the headline from Computer Weekly (British publication). There are many Microsoft lobbyists and mobbyists pushing for RAND in Europe and we’ll have a separate post about that.
The government of India has mandated open standards for all its IT systems as fears mount that Europe’s equivalent European Interoperability Framework has been hijacked by rights holders.
India’s policy orders software patent holders to give up any royalty rights they have over interoperability standards. If rights holders refuse, their standards simply won’t be used in government systems.
Separately, an intellectual monopolies blog from India wrote about a “Copyright Victory for the Disabled”, which helps show another area where India’s intellectual monopoly policies are ahead of those found in the West (ahead as in more humane and sane).
Prashant recently highlighted the key findings of a Parliamentary standing committee constituted to study the copyright amendment bill. In particular, the report comes as a huge victory to two sets of stakeholders, namely film/music artists on the one hand (music composers and lyricists who can now claim a good 50% royalty on all exploitations of their work, notwithstanding any assignments) and the disabled or differently-abled communities on the other.
Let me focus on the disability sector in this note. I’ll leave recommendations pertaining to music composers/lyricists (an aspect on which we’d written several times in the past) to a later post.
Our previous posts highlighted the gross inadequacy of the “disability” exception sought to be carved out in the copyright bill. Particularly the fact that the proposed exception was limited to conversions of copyrighted works to only “special” formats.
See what Stevie Wonder had to say on the subject. The copyright cartel is a lot stronger where he lives. So again, kudos to India for showing the right way and setting an example. █
Summary: Analysis of the position Novell is in, including its stake in UNIX
One thing that Novell and SCO have in common is that both want the asset of UNIX because of its value. Both companies are heading into the ashtray and UNIX from Novell appears to have found a buyer in Microsoft.
In the SCO vs. Novell, there is no good side and bad side. Both sides are bad, but Groklaw for example took one side and keeps reporting on it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] as if for Novell to win the case would be the end of the story. Novell has been fighting for UNIX because of its shareholders, not because of a community of GNU/Linux users. In a later post we are going to say more about the ownership of UNIX and what exactly is about to happen. What we do know, based on Microsoft Nick’s post about the SEC filing, is that “Novell entered into a Patent Purchase Agreement (the “Patent Purchase Agreement”) with CPTN Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation (“CPTN”). The Patent Purchase Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Patent Purchase Agreement, Novell will sell to CPTN all of Novell’s right, title and interest in 882 patents (the “Assigned Patents”) for $450 million in cash (the “Patent Sale”).” It’s likely that AttachMSFT [sic] will just put all the remaining assets up for sale and the funding source behind AttachMSFT is a subject we’ll touch another day (clues below). █
Resumen: Karel de Gucht, current European Commissioner for Trade y la USPTO (Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos) continuan con su carrera por el ACTA, que es un enemigo de la libertad del software, así como muchas otras libertades entre ellas la soberanía de los pueblos.
La semana pasada mencionamos Karel de Gucht[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_de_Gucht], comisario europeo de Comercio, quien cínicamente sostiene falsamente que el ACTA (Tratado Comercial de Lucha contra la Falsificación) no dañará el software libre[http://twitter.com/FFII/statuses/5409097092440064]. Este hombre se convirtió en otro enemigo de los intereses de Europa por la elección para impulsar la iniciativa de EE.UU. conocido como ACTA (que es inconstitucional[http://techrights.org/2009/08/27/hacking-basic-freedoms/]). Su propósito es ayudar a mega-corporaciones ganar más poder sobre la sociedad en todo el mundo. El deslizamiento de la lengua de Karel ha causado Techdirt afirmar que[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/12403111915/as-us-insists-acta-is-not-a-treaty-eu-trade-commissioner-admits-it-s-a-treaty.shtml]:
Los EE.UU. Insiste ACTA no es un Tratado, el Comisario Europeo de Comercio, admite que es un Tratado
“Ya hemos publicado acerca de David Kappos[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos] (Subsecretario de Comercio para la Propiedad Intelectual y Director de la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos) no “da respuesta a las preguntas de la legalidad sobre el ACTA, pero en el fondo de la cobertura de KEI acerca de esta historia hay otro punto interesante. ACTA partidarios en los EE.UU. se han doblado hacia atrás para insistir en que el ACTA no es un tratado. Toda vez que alguien la menciona como un tratado en los comentarios aquí, uno de los partidarios del ACTA entre nuestros lectores rápidamente va amonestar por no tener ni idea de la ley y se insiste en que esto no es nada más que un “ACUERDO EJECUTIVO”, que no es necesario la aprobación del Senado. Es uno de los puntos favoritos de conversaciónde los partidarios del ACTA. Por supuesto, hay algunos serias interrogantes constitucionales al respecto.
Sin embargo, mucho más revelador es que muchos partidarios ACTA absolutamente admiten que es un tratado. Ya Hemos señalado que la Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA[http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx]) lo hizo hace unas semanas (y también se afirmaba falsamente que ya había sido firmado por 37 países).”
Hola, Kappos, me escuchas? Et tu, Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA?
Observe el papel desempeñado por la USPTO (Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos) allí. Kappos no sirve de nada[http://techrights.org/2010/03/06/uspto-makes-things-worse/] a causa de sus opiniones sobre el status quo. Los créditos debe ir al brillante Bernard Sanders, cuyas acciones se destacan por KEI en este momento[http://keionline.org/node/1022]:
Carta No-Respondida por David Kappos de la USPTO a los senadores Sanders y Brown Relativa a la Coherencia de ACTA con la Legislación de los EE.UU.
“En un 19 de octubre 2010, los senadores Bernard Sanders (I-VT) y Sherrod Brown (D-OH) escribió a David Kappos, el Director de la USPTO, solicitando una evaluación de los conflictos entre el texto del ACTA octubre 2010, y la ley de EE.UU. . (Que se adjunta aquí).”
KEI también tiene este nuevo documento [http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ep-prizes-jamie-18nov2010.pdf][PDF] titulado “Innovación Premios Incentivos para reducir los costos, Mejorar la productividad y ampliar el acceso”. Es de hace dos días y el objetivo es Europa. KEI – como nosotros – desea ayudar a los estadounidenses[http://techrights.org/2010/11/20/esp-america-pov/]. Pero lo que es bueno para los conglomerados de América, por ejemplo, no es necesariamente bueno para los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos. Vamos a exponer a los “buitres” (no las águilas) de la sociedad y exponer sus maliciosa agenda, de auto-servicio que la USPTO (Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos) contribuye a perpetuar . La USPTO – como grupo de presión – está ahí para servir a los abogados contraproducentemente y a las grandes corporaciones, por lo que en los EE.UU. “la USPTO” puede ser tan engañosa como en “Nueva Zelanda” la “NZICT” (que aboga por los intereses que son opuestos a Nueva Zelanda)[http://techrights.org/2010/08/25/nzict-and-microsoft-gold-partner/].
Eduardo Landaveri adds (in English):
Another chapter on the fight against software patents.
As I said before India && Europe efforts against software patents are not only their hope for a better future for themselves && their children but the Latin American && African countries hope for a better future. Free from digital colonialism.
“C’mon India && Europe, do not give up against these corporations, give yourselves && to us the gift of Freedom”
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
- Thomas Paine
Or in Spanish:
Como he dicho antes los esfuerzos de India Europa ycontra las patentes de software no son sólo la esperanza de un futuro mejor para ellos y sus hijos, sin lo la esperanza de un futuro mejor para los paises de América Latina y Africano. Libres de colonialismo digital.
“Vamos, India y Europa, no se dén por vencido en contra de estas corporaciones, dense a sí mismos y a nosotros el regalo de la libertad”
“Los que esperan cosechar las bendiciones de la libertad deben, como hombres, sufren la fatiga de apoyarla.”
- Thomas Paine
Eduardo’s translations hopefully broaden the reach of this information. █
Summary: Smeegol has problems with the name and Milestone 3 of OpenSUSE 11.4 gets delayed as the project as a whole slows down
REMEMBER OpenSUSE? It’s that Novell product which people no longer hear so much about anymore. It used to be covered regularly, but now there just isn’t enough news with which to do so. Looking at the past fortnight, however, there is this one scandal around Smeegol 1.0, which was reviewed here:
Smeegol 1.0 distribution quite similar to Meego distribution which built by combining between Moblin and Maemo. OpenSUSE goblin team announced Smeegol 1.0 release, OpenSUSE based distribution, using Meego user interface. Comes with a really big software collection and most of them up to date including internet application, multimedia application, social media application, and many applications will mention it on the review.
After its October 6th release, the Smeegol project (an openSUSE interpretation of MeeGo, which we reported on), has been told by the Linux Foundation that it must find a new name. In a reply to the project, the Linux Foundation said the project’s use of the Smeegol name would not beneficial to MeeGo. Read on for more details.
Unsurprisingly, there has been some consternation among the Smeegol community about this. There is thus resistence to change the Smeegol name, which has partly been fueld by the timing of communications.
Andrew Waffa initially contacted the Linux Foundation (via the gmane.comp.handhelds.meego.devel newsgroup) on behalf of the Smeegol project on the 20th of September, 16 days ahead of Smeegol’s official release.
Wednesday at the conference, Smeegol master Andrew “Funkypenguin” Wafaa was given the stage by Michael Meeks who was supposed to talk about MeeGo. Meeks claimed that he’d rather have someone on the stage who actually knew what he was talking about, hence Andrew had to explain himself to the audience.
Will Smeegol be renamed/rebranded?
OpenSUSE has been having a hard time attracting new people and Novell tries to use money in desperate attempts to attract more people to Novell appliances. It’s attracting them using prizes which Linux Foundation marketing staff then advertises :
Bowen: The chance to win $10,000 has attracted many entrants. Of the 900 appliances that have been published to SUSE Gallery, a couple of interesting ones involve social media…
As a result we decided to found the openSUSE Invis Project. The idea is to create an openSUSE Distribution flavor with solid packages coming from openSUSE Factory together with some specifically packaged sources ready to power the Invis Server. The openSUSE Buildservice will be used to build the needed packages and create the product images. The first tasks will be to clean up the package list and do some packaging to be able to create a convenient openSUSE-Invis CD.
Going back to the OpenSUSE Conference (OSC), Jos Poortvliet keeps a positive attitude about it (here is his OpenSUSE talk), calling it a “big success” (as a Novell employee he is biased) and Novell’s PR staff writes about that too. Novell has an overly optimistic outlook given that SUSE is up for sale. “We’re already excited for next year! So, stay tuned for updates on dates and locations for 2011,” they say.
Other than technicalposts and some more coverage of OpenSUSE Build Service 2.1 (e.g. [1, 2]), there are new Mozilla vulnerabilities in OpenSUSE being reported [[1, 2]. There are also new releases of OpenSUSE Weekly News (issue number 145, 146, 147, and 148) and saddening news about release delays in the project.
While it is unlikely that this will cause any disruption to the current release schedule for openSUSE 11.4, it’s certainly something to keep an eye on if you’re a big fan of fancy graphics and effects with KDE.
“Election season in the openSUSE Project is just around the corner,” says the project’s (product) Web site. Novell will keep control of this product, as usual. The elections just make it look more independent. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA