Fsf-friends April 2005

fsf-friends@gnu.org.in

29 participants
44 discussions

<incom> FW: [A2k] India's Statement at WIPO (fwd)
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 15 Apr '05

15 Apr '05

---------- Forwarded message ---------- -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin(a)lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin@lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Gerloff Sent: April 15, 2005 10:55 AM To: a2k(a)lists.essential.org Subject: [A2k] India's Statement at WIPO -- Hi all, here's India's statement at the WIPO IIM/1. Since it is extremely clearly phrased in summing up the Friends of Development proposal, it made quite a splash on Tuesday. Best regards Karsten Statement by India at the Inter-Sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda For WIPO, April 11-13, 2005 Mr. Chairman, Let me congratulate you on your election to Chair this very important meeting. This is, indeed, a special day for the organization. It is the first time that a Development Agenda has been taken up for consideration in WIPO. We have high expectations that the outcome of this session of the IIM and its subsequent sessions will lead to mainnstreaming the development dimension into all areas of WIPO's work and activities. We are confident that under your able guidance, we will be able to achieve agreement on the realisation of this very important objective - an objective shared by all member states of WIPO, developed or developing. You can count on our delegation's full support in reaching this goal. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Group of Friends of Development for introducing the proposal for a Development Agenda, first during the General Assemblies meeting in Semptember 2004 and now on a further elaboration of the issues in the Document WO/GA/31/14. We fully support the porposal, in particular, the establishment of a WIPO Evaluation and Research Office (WERO). We note that the issues discussed in their proposal are not exhaustive. They, however, cover the most important areas relating to WIPO's mandate and governance, norm setting, technical cooperation and transfer of technology. The Elaboration of Issues paper of the Group constitutes an excellent starting point for establishing a "development agenda" in WIPO. This would strengthen the organisation and ensure that its governance structure is more inclusive, transparent, and democratic, and, most important, that it is truly a member-driven organisation. As pointed out in the two documents presented by the Group of Friends of Development, we agree that much more needs to be done in WIPO to reach the effective results that meet the challenges of development. "Development", in WIPO's terminology means increasing a developing country's capacity to provide protection to the owners of intellectual property rights. This is quite a the opposite of what developing countries understand when they refer to the 'development dimension'. The document presented by the Group of Friends of Development corrects this misconception - that development dimension means technical assistance. The real "development" imperative is ensuring that the interest of Intellectual Property owners is not secured at the expense of the users of IP, of consumers at large, and of public policy in general. The proposal therefore seeks to incorporate int international IP law and practice, what developing countries have been demanding since TRIPS was forced on them in 1994. The primary rationale for Intellectual Property protection is, first and foremost, to promote societal development by encouraging technological innovation. The legal monopoly granted to IP owners is an exceptional departure from the general principle of competitive markets as the best guarantee for securing the interest of society. The rationale for the exception is not that extraction of monopoly profits by the innovator is, of and in itself, good for society and so needs to be promoted. Rather, that properly controlled, such a monopoly, by providing an incentive for innovation, might produce sufficient benefits for society to compensate for the immediate loss to consumers as a result of the existence of a monopoly market instead of a competitive market. Monopoly rights, then, granted to IP holders is a special incentive that needs to be carefully calibrated by each country, in the light of its own circumstances, taking into account the overall costs and benefits of such protection. Should the rationale for a monopoly be absent, as in the case of cross-border rights involving developed and developing countries, the only justification for the grant of a monopoly is a contractual obligation, such as the TRIPS agreement, and nothing more. In such a situation it makes little sense for one party, especially the weaker party, to agree to assume greater obligations than he is contractually bound to accept. This, in short, is what the developed countries have sought to do so far in the context of WIPO. The message of the Development Agenda is clear: no longer are developing countries prepared to accept this approach, or continuation of the status quo. Even in a developed country, where the monopoly profits of the domestic IP rights holders are recycled through the economy and so benefit the public in varying degrees, there is continuing debate on the equity and fairness of such protection, with some even questioning its claimed social benefits. Given the total absence of any mandatory cross-border resource transfers or welfare payments, and the absence of any significant domestic recycling of the monopoly profits of foreign IP rights holders, the case for strong IP protection in developing countries is without any economic basis. Harmonization of IP laws across countries with asymmetric distribution of IP assets is, clearly, intended to serve the interest of rent seekers in developed countries rather than that of the public in developing countries. Neither intellectual property protection, nor the harmonization of intellectual property laws leading to higher protection standards in all countries irrespective of their level of development, can be an end in itself. For developing countries to benefit from providing IP protection to rights holders based in developed countries, there has to be some obligation on the part of developed countries to transfer and disseminate technologies to developing countries. Even though the intended beneficiary of IP protection is the public at large, the immediate beneficiaries are the IP rights holders, the vast majority if whom are in developed countries. Absent an obligation on technology transfer, asymmetric IP rent flows would become a permanent feature, and the benefits of IP protection would forever elude consumers in developing countries. As pointed out in the proposal by the Group of Friends of Development, technology transfer should be a fundamental objective of the global intellectual property system. WIPO is recognised as a specialised agency with the responsibility for taking appropriate measures for undertaking this and we expect the "development agenda" to address this issue. Technical assistance should be primarily directed towards impact assessment and enabling the developing countries, including LDCs to utilize the space within the prevailing arrangements in multilateral IP treaties and conventions. The current emphasis of Technical Assistance on implementation and enforcement issues is misplaced. IP Law enforcement is embedded in the framework of all law enforcement in the individual countries. It is unrealistic, and even undesirable to expect that the enforcement of IP laws will be privileged over the enforcement of other laws in the country. Society faces a considerable challenge to effectively protect, and resolve disputes over, physical property. To expect that the police, the lawyers and the courts should dedicate a sizable part of society's enforcement resources for protecting intangible intellectual property, is unrealistic. Therefore, WIPO's current focus of Technical Assistance should be shifted to other areas such as development impact assessment. This would, inter alia, inspire civil society and others to play a supportive role, if the impact is seen to be favourable to the community. In conclusion, it is important that developed countries and WIPO acknowledge that IP protection is an important policy instrument for developing countries, one that needs to be used carefully. While the claimed benefits of strong IP protection for developing countries are a matter of debate - and nearly always in the distant future - such protection invariably entails substatial real an immediate costs for these countries. In formulating its IP policy, therefore, each country needs to have sufficient flexibility so that the cost of IP protection does not outweigh the benefits. It is clearly in the interest of developing countries that WIPO recognizes this and formulates its work program accordingly - including its 'technical assistance' - and not limit its activities, as it currently does, to the blind promotion of increasingly higher levels of IP protection. This is where WIPO, as a specialized UN agency, can make a major impact - by truly incorporating the development dimension into its mission - in letter and in spirit, so that it is appropriately reflected in all its instruments. Certainly it will result in a revitalisation of WIPO as an organisation sensitive to integrating the development concerns of developing countries into all areas of its work. -- Join the Fellowship and protect your Freedom! <www.fsfe.org> Weblog: <www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/> === -- [ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ] _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k _______________________________________________ incom-l mailing list incom-l(a)incommunicado.info http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l

1 0

COMMENT: India's amazing statement on IP and international development (fwd)
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 15 Apr '05

15 Apr '05

---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/15/indias_amazing_state.html Friday, April 15, 2005 India's amazing statement on IP and international development Earlier this week at the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there was a meeting to talk about how to reform the org to make it into a humanitarian agency that promotes development, not monopoly rights for publishing and pharmaceutical companies. India's statement from the floor was so good it should be taught in universities. Check it out: The real "development" imperative is ensuring that the interest of Intellectual Property owners is not secured at the expense of the users of IP, of consumers at large, and of public policy in general. The proposal therefore seeks to incorporate int international IP law and practice, what developing countries have been demanding since TRIPS was forced on them in 1994. The primary rationale for Intellectual Property protection is, first and foremost, to promote societal development by encouraging technological innovation. The legal monopoly granted to IP owners is an exceptional departure from the general principle of competitive markets as the best guarantee for securing the interest of society. The rationale for the exception is not that extraction of monopoly profits by the innovator is, of and in itself, good for society and so needs to be promoted. Rather, that properly controlled, such a monopoly, by providing an incentive for innovation, might produce sufficient benefits for society to compensate for the immediate loss to consumers as a result of the existence of a monopoly market instead of a competitive market. Monopoly rights, then, granted to IP holders is a special incentive that needs to be carefully calibrated by each country, in the light of its own circumstances, taking into account the overall costs and benefits of such protection. Link posted by Cory Doctorow at 07:52:49 AM permalink | Other blogs commenting on this post [Thanks to Sandip B for pointing this out on the India-GII list earlier.]

1 0

Reg. kopete
by Joe Steeve 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

I had earlier posted a announcement (a forward from lug-goa) about the patent infringement of Kopete. The announcement sounded like the Kopete project was getting sued. At the time of posting it to the list., I was offline and so was unable to verify the facts. Sorry about the mis-interpretations. The correct news is that., the developer team of Kopete, a KDE based IM client., have decided to close down the site www.kopete.org in order to make the users from EU to talk to their local EU representatives and make them vote against the bill approving `software patents` in the EU. They have not been threatened by anybody (till now). They have mentioned the IM patents that they infringe just to make the readers realize how silly and stupid software patents could be. However.. software patents do suck., and to hell with them. -- .O. A proud GNU user ..O http://www.joesteeve.tk/ OOO http://joe.bsdnerds.org/

1 0

Three cheers to Kerala...
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Three cheers to the Kerala text books, which are attempting to offer vendor-independent education in IT, as is evident from this extract below, Chapter III, Std X text book (available for free download): http://mission.akshaya.net/dpi/ * Spread sheets are the software which helps to calculate quickly and easily. * Different spreadsheets are used in the Operating system(s) such as Windows and GNU/Linux. * Microsoft Excel is the widely used spreadsheet in Windows. * Open Office Calc is the spread sheet used in GNU/Linux.... _____ _/ ____\____ Frederick Noronha * Freelance Journalist * Goa \ __\/ \ India T +91.832.2409490 M +919822 122436 | | | | \ http://fn.swiki.net http://goabooks.swiki.net |__| |___| / http://www.bytesforall.net http://www.bytesforall.org \/ ----------------------------------------------------- Sign up for low-volume, high-quality news summaries and updates from Goa at http://newsfromgoa.swiki.net * It's free and volunteer-driven.

1 0

Re: [Fsf-friends] [Fwd: Re: [Fsf-tn] Kopete is closed for patent infringement]
by Kanti Jadia 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Further to this,can somebody clarify the following points. 1. Can we get kopete hosted in India 2. Is it legal in India to reverse engineer software ( for learning or creating a compatible system ) Regards Kanti On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 Ramanraj K wrote : > -------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [Fsf-tn] Kopete is closed for patent infringement >Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:42:15 +0530 > From: Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k(a)gmail.com> >To: Joe Steeve <joe_steeve(a)gmx.net> >CC: GLUG Madurai <glug-madurai-discuss(a)lists.sourceforge.net>, GLUGOT <glugot(a)tce.edu>, SREC LUG <srec-lug(a)yahoogroups.com>, KEC Linux User Group <klug(a)mail.kongu.edu>, FSF Tamil Nadu <fsf-tn(a)gnu.org.in>, SonaLUG <sonalug(a)yahoogroups.com> >References: <8764yr8y15.fsf(a)deck8.enterprise> > >Joe Steeve wrote: > >>THIS IS JUST A BEGINNING! >> >>Kopete, the famous KDE messenger is closed for patent >>infringement. >>The patents that affect Kopete are: >>(0) Patent 6449344, granted to ICQ. The patent covers >>anything resembling a network that lets multiple IM >>users see when other people are present and the >>communicate with them >>(1) iKimbo (www.ikimbo.com) received a patent on a >>method for inviting people to join "communities" which >>include chat or instant messaging systems. >>(2) Microsoft received a patent on "Activity >>Monitoring" for Instant Messaging systems. This patent >>would seem to cover the MSN Messenger messages that >>say: "Sally is typing now..." >> >>See http://www.kopete.org/ >It is time India filed a complaint in the WTO against the illegitimate and illegal practice of "software patents" that impose trade barriers in contravention and violation of TRIPs Agreement, seeking the issue of directions to US, Japan and others to update their laws in accordance with TRIPs. The inhuman, humiliating and dastardly harassment of software developers through patent infringement suits is condemnable, and this should halt. The means of criminal prosecution of those who practice "software patents" should also be explored. Computing rights are a fundamental right, where each exercise is well protected by copyright, and any unreasonable restriction through "software patents" is a serious violation of human rights, and probably people who are responsible for the practice should be strictly dealt with in accordance with international law, the same way "war criminals" are dealt with. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Fsf-friends mailing list >Fsf-friends(a)mm.gnu.org.in >http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends ----------------------------------------- Enjoy your Freedom,use GNU/Linux. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html -----------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Ubuntu GNU/Linux
by Ramanraj K 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Daniel Stone wrote: >Ubuntu is just Ubuntu. It is neither Ubuntu Linux nor Ubuntu GNU/Linux. > >Hope that helps, > Free software gives you that freedom, but I am sure it is not very difficult to give credit to the GNU Project by calling Ubuntu a GNU/Linux distribution. FSF India cannot promote any distro that does not give due credit to the GNU Project, and I hope you could appreciate this concern, and do the needful in this regard. -Ramanraj.

1 0

FLOSS takes to the cricket pitch! (fwd)
by Frederick Noronha (FN) 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "suchenchodankar" <suchenchodankar(a)yahoo.com> Add Address Date: 2005/04/13 Wed PM 06:37:20 IST To: ilug-goa(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: we have built a fantasy cricket game, visit www.superteam05.cjb.net and register Hello, I am a Suchen G. Chodankar(from Durbhat, Ponda) student of final year I.T. Engineering course at Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi. Me and my class-mate Sagar Arlekar(from Calangute) has designed a web based fantasy cricket game. This game is similar to superselector on espnstar.com . The game is built using open source and free software. Apache- web server PHP- scripting language MySql- database We are thankful to the open source community. This game was started as a semester project in Jan 2004, at that time the project had 7 members all students of I.T. Engineering course, Goa College of Engineering. In Jan 2005 we restarted the project work, added new features to it and made it fully functional and put it online. You can register at www.superteam05.cjb.net. We already have about 60 users registered. The game is free to use, open to all and easy to understand. You just have to select a cricket team of 11 players that includes 5 batsmen, 4 bowlers, 1 allrounder and 1 wicket keeper. Your team will gain points as the players selected by you score/perform in real matches. You compete against other users. The game closes at the end of the month. We have a message board on the site to gain your feedback. Enjoy playing superteam. Thank You Suchen G. Chodankar END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE _____ _/ ____\____ Frederick Noronha * Freelance Journalist * Goa \ __\/ \ India T +91.832.2409490 M +919822 122436 | | | | \ http://fn.swiki.net http://goabooks.swiki.net |__| |___| / http://www.bytesforall.net http://www.bytesforall.org \/ ----------------------------------------------------- Sign up for low-volume, high-quality news summaries and updates from Goa at http://newsfromgoa.swiki.net * It's free and volunteer-driven.

1 0

Re: [Fsf-friends] Re: [ILUG-BOM] Tally and GNU/Linux
by kunal bharati 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Hello Friends, Magnet Webpublishing (www.magnet-i.com) was planning to develop Tally clone for GNU/Linux. Me and my friends planned to do it as our final year project of Bsc. Computer Science. But according to Mumbai University we have to do projects using proprietary software only !!! We cant even use GTK or QT. Anyways, Magnet wanted us to use Mono. But the project was called off because of rules made by Mumbai University and we are not working on it. Cant tell what kind of licenses they are going to use. Kunal __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [Fsf-tn] Kopete is closed for patent infringement]
by Ramanraj K 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fsf-tn] Kopete is closed for patent infringement Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:42:15 +0530 From: Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k(a)gmail.com> To: Joe Steeve <joe_steeve(a)gmx.net> CC: GLUG Madurai <glug-madurai-discuss(a)lists.sourceforge.net>, GLUGOT <glugot(a)tce.edu>, SREC LUG <srec-lug(a)yahoogroups.com>, KEC Linux User Group <klug(a)mail.kongu.edu>, FSF Tamil Nadu <fsf-tn(a)gnu.org.in>, SonaLUG <sonalug(a)yahoogroups.com> References: <8764yr8y15.fsf(a)deck8.enterprise> Joe Steeve wrote: >THIS IS JUST A BEGINNING! > >Kopete, the famous KDE messenger is closed for patent >infringement. > >The patents that affect Kopete are: >(0) Patent 6449344, granted to ICQ. The patent covers >anything resembling a network that lets multiple IM >users see when other people are present and the >communicate with them >(1) iKimbo (www.ikimbo.com) received a patent on a >method for inviting people to join "communities" which >include chat or instant messaging systems. >(2) Microsoft received a patent on "Activity >Monitoring" for Instant Messaging systems. This patent >would seem to cover the MSN Messenger messages that >say: "Sally is typing now..." > >See http://www.kopete.org/ > It is time India filed a complaint in the WTO against the illegitimate and illegal practice of "software patents" that impose trade barriers in contravention and violation of TRIPs Agreement, seeking the issue of directions to US, Japan and others to update their laws in accordance with TRIPs. The inhuman, humiliating and dastardly harassment of software developers through patent infringement suits is condemnable, and this should halt. The means of criminal prosecution of those who practice "software patents" should also be explored. Computing rights are a fundamental right, where each exercise is well protected by copyright, and any unreasonable restriction through "software patents" is a serious violation of human rights, and probably people who are responsible for the practice should be strictly dealt with in accordance with international law, the same way "war criminals" are dealt with.

2 1

[Fwd: Summary of the Workshop at UoM on TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs]
by Ramanraj K 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Summary of the Workshop at UoM on TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:06:48 +0530 From: Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k(a)gmail.com> To: ilugc(a)ae.iitm.ac.in Brief highlights of the Workshop on "TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs at the Dept. of Legal Studies, UoM on 8th April 2005: The presentation slides are available at: http://wiki.ffii.org/Madras050408En Sivasankar started the discussion with the difficulties involved in testing "program equivalence", giving two short programs, based on the Goldbach conjecture, calling one as the goldbach (about 7 lines) and the other the ghost_of_goldbach (about 3 lines that always returns true). Testing program equivalence is at the heart of any "software patent" infringement suit, and Shiv proved that it is well impossible to scientifically research and conclude that two given programs are equivalent. There are not even any standard rules for scientifically testing and concluding "program equivalence". Sivasankar holds a B.Tech. from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, and has done M.E. in Computer Science, at IISc., Bangalore. He has worked for IBM, USA., and has presented several papers on computer science, and software development. Well, he is a typical expert who may be called to testify in a "software patent" infringement suit, to "prove" that a given computer program infringes upon a given "software patent". From what I understood, no expert can assert on oath that two programs are "equivalent" or that one is a copy of the other, except when the two are exact copies. Murali discussed the various business models used by software entities to do business. I basically summarised the recent events touching upon patentability of software patents under TRIPS that has mostly been discussed to death in our various mailing lists; and to enliven the proceedings; took the audience through the recent decision pronounced in Eolas v. Microsoft, to explain how the system works in the US, and that we should explore and research the steps that could be taken against the illegitimate practice of "software patents" which are a barrier against free trade. I would like to thank Raman who gave a demo, and all the participants from ilugc. Please post your comments/opinions to jur-parl mailing list at http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/jur-parl Thanks, Ramanraj.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Fsf-friends April 2005