Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Florian MÃller et al. Swing Against Software Patents at LinuxTag 2010; Intellecutal Monopolies Kill More People

  • Subject: [News] Florian MÃller et al. Swing Against Software Patents at LinuxTag 2010; Intellecutal Monopolies Kill More People
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:49:42 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.4.2
Hash: SHA1

Dominik Brodowski - Criminal Regulations by the European Union - New Threats or New Opportunities 


European Union processes relevant to Linux and open source

,----[ Quote ]
| Overview of recent, ongoing and impending 
| decision-making processes at the EU level 
| (legislative and regulatory processes) that 
| are relevant to the commercial adoption, 
| distribution and development of Linux and 
| open source: the European Commission's 
| Digital Agenda and the European 
| Interoperability Framework; the proposed 
| European patent reform and its impact on 
| software patents; the aftermath of recent 
| competition cases (Microsoft cases; 
| Oracle/Sun merger control; potential new 
| cases and recently lodged complaints (such 
| as the complaints against IBM's conduct in 
| the mainframe market); other relevant 
| developments in Brussels.


Legal fight over breast cancer gene

,----[ Quote ]
| Landmark legal action challenging a patent 
| over breast cancer gene BRCA1 is being 
| launched in Australia today.


The Ethical And Legal Problems Of Having Patients Sign Over The Copyright On Doctor Reviews

,----[ Quote ]
| About a year ago, we wrote about the really 
| troubling concept pushed by a group called 
| Medical Justice, which tries to "protect" 
| doctors from negative reviews online by 
| having them demand that patients hand over 
| the copyright on any future reviews they 
| might write. As we noted at the time, this 
| was an attempt to completely abuse 
| copyright law, way beyond its intended 
| purpose -- though we wondered if it would 
| actually work.
| [...]
| Separately, Jason Schultz points out that 
| this whole scheme appears to violate basic 
| medical ethics rules. He points to a 
| particular rule:
|     Under no circumstances may physicians 
|     place their own financial interests 
|     above the welfare of their patients. 
|     The primary objective of the medical 
|     profession is to render service to 
|     humanity; reward or financial gain is a 
|     subordinate consideration. For a 
|     physician to unnecessarily hospitalize 
|     a patient, prescribe a drug, or conduct 
|     diagnostic tests for the physician's 
|     financial benefit is unethical. If a 
|     conflict develops between the 
|     physician's financial interest and the 
|     physician's responsibilities to the 
|     patient, the conflict must be resolved 
|     to the patient's benefit. 
| How does that apply here? As Schultz 
| explains:
|     Since the main concern of Medical 
|     Justice appears to be preventing harm 
|     to the physician's reputation (and thus 
|     financial interest), forcing patients 
|     to assign away their copyrights in 
|     exchange for medical care strikes me as 
|     close if not over this line. It 
|     certainly is not putting patients 
|     first. When a patient goes to see a 
|     doctor, they are often anxious, in 
|     pain, or worried and thus in a very 
|     psychologically vulnerable position, or 
|     what the law often calls a position of 
|     "duress" where they will often sign 
|     documents without giving them proper 
|     consideration. This hardly seems to me 
|     to be a fair time to demand they assign 
|     some unknown number of future 
|     copyrights to their doctor; instead it 
|     feels like a huge power grab by the 
|     physician. 
| When you create draconian copyright laws 
| that include free speech removing notice-
| and-takedown provisions, don't be surprised 
| when people abuse it for other purposes, 
| well beyond the intent of copyright law. 



Bilski Decision Watch

,----[ Quote ]
| They are probably right to be. A delay
| this long in the decision most likely
| means that the Court is waiting until the
| end of the term to release it - which they
| traditionally do for what the Justices
| consider to be their most important and/or
| far reaching decisions of the year.
| It may also be the case that there are
| either important dissents or concurring
| opinions on the case, thus prompting a
| delay with back and forth rewrites and
| revisions to the final decisions. (Though
| one should recall that at oral arguments,
| the Justices seemed universally critical
| to the idea of broad-based business method
| patents.)


And I thought patents encouraged innovation


Mailing Out Patent Absurdity

,----[ Quote ]
| On the eve of re: Bilski, the anxiously
| awaited Supreme Court decision on business
| method patents (with potential
| implications for software patents), I
| decided to collaborate with the End
| Software Patents coalition and send out
| 200 copies of the short movie they
| recently produced called Patent Absurdity
| about why software should not be able to
| be patented to a focused list of key
| people.  The letter follows.


Mailing Out Patent Absurdity


Patent Absurdity mailed to 200 policy setters

,----[ Quote ]
| Venture capitalist Brad Feld has mailed a
| copy of Patent Absurdity to 200 policy
| setters in the USA (see Who should see
| Patent Absurdity?). The 200 are
| influential people in companies, standards
| groups, academia, and the relevent
| political committees.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index