Sharing Nicely

Category: ipr

dodgy digits – putting a positive spin on things

Ars Technica, usually the place of choice for in-depth technology reviews, publishes a fantastic fact-checking exercise on the estimated “damages” that the strong Intellectual Property lobby commonly promotes. The find that the two most often cited numbers, “750,000 jobs lost to IP theft” and “$200 – $250 billion cost of IP infringement to the US […]

Return of the Track

Walking towards the conference venue on this last day of the open education track at the iSummit 08 I found myself humming along to the melody of Mark Morrison’s “Return of the Mack” – how fitting I thought – since this was truly the Return of the Track (the Open Education Track). Last year Gunner […]

Patents Cheat-Sheet – Preparing for WIPO workshop

I was invited to a WIPO workshop at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) tomorrow and decided to spend a few minutes of this mother day compiling my notes and references. Judging from the titles of the sessions, the workshop will provide some background on patents and innovation (not the same thing of course), […]

ooxml accepted by ISO – quick thoughts on what this means

Rumours had been making the rounds since Sunday evening, but now it’s confirmed that a fundamentally flawed standardisation process has — not surprisingly — resulted in a fundamentally flawed new ISO standard for open documents ISO 29500. Faced with all of the lobbying might of a powerful international corporation, many standard bodies in smaller countries […]

Problems using self-archived articles in South African universities

The open access movement has had tremendous success increasing the amount of self-archived journal articles. Self-archiving means that authors can negotiate with publishers the right to keep a copy of their peer-reviewed article on a personal (or institutional) web-site for public download. Self-archived journal articles are usually covered by copyright, but users are allowed to […]

Commonwealth of Learning on Open Licenses – My comments

The Commonwealth of Learning has published a chapter on open licenses (part of an upcoming book on the use of copyright for authors, educators and librarians). I believe such a book could be a great resource, and given the CoL’s mission of supporting education I was quite excited to have a look and share it […]

A Fair(y) Use Tale – a RipMixLearn triumph

Fantastic Disney mesh-up to explain the concept of copyright and fair use (which is referred to as fair dealing in South Africa). It’s a tricky beast and, as the film points out “not a right!” and there is much uncertainty how much of a work can be reproduced for teaching and learning in higher education […]

publisher switches to CC license

Also found this on the lessig blog. A US publisher makes the majority of its newspapers available online under CC Attribution NonCommercial license. This is important, because it greatly lowers the effort involved in clearing rights. Many people have nothing against others using their content for non-commercial use, but they would like to be asked. […]

D(ont)R(estrict)M(y rights)

Is this something to worry about or will the pressure of social norms (and the smarts of software developers worldwide) render these last efforts as useless as the chip that someone wanted to build into everyone’s TVs at one point …… And as Cory points out, you can use google search to find it.What this is really about is an incumbent industry’s desperate attempts to rescue an outdated business model.

novelty not required for US patents anymore?

from :”That’s one reason why the proposed Patent Reform Act contains a new definition of prior art. The bill would narrow the definition of prior art to include only inventions that are “reasonably and effectively accessible” to those skilled in the field. The new definition would exclude inventions that are relatively unpublicized and products such as software that are marketed to the public but whose workings are kept hidden from experts in the field because the products cannot readily be disassembled to see how they work.Software companies are worried that their rights would be undercut by the proposed redefinition of prior art. Others are concerned that the definition is so vague that it would spawn a huge amount of litigation.“There would end up being many litigations and many hearings about whether a piece of proposed prior art is reasonably and effectively accessible,” says Kelly Hunsaker, a patent litigator in Redwood City, Calif.”