Epsiplatform.eu, here.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Monday, September 03, 2012
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Tightening the System: The Nature and Likely Effect of UK Competition Reforms
G. Olsen, D. Harrison, here.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
ACCC Has an Excellent New Cartels Movie to Raise Awareness
Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog, here.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
ICANN: Antitrust Allegations Before US District Court
Manwin Licensing International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al., Case CV 11-9514 PSG (JCGx), Order GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part the
Motions to Dismiss, here.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Apple-Samsung Amended Jury Verdict
US District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, here.
Friday, August 24, 2012
WIPO: 2012 IP Facts and Figures: Computer Technologies' Patent Dominance
Here.
However, "most national and regional IP office statistics refer to 2010".
At p.21: "(I)n 2010, computer technology (117,576) and electrical machinery (104,543) accounted for the largest numbers of applications, with a combined share of 15% of all published application" (emphasis mine).
However, "most national and regional IP office statistics refer to 2010".
At p.21: "(I)n 2010, computer technology (117,576) and electrical machinery (104,543) accounted for the largest numbers of applications, with a combined share of 15% of all published application" (emphasis mine).
Striking a balance between competition compliance and business costs – an Australian perspective
J. Walker, Presentation here.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Lemley on what drives competition in the IT space
“Apple presented the intellectual property view of innovation — we created it, we own it, you can’t use it. Samsung presented the competition view of innovation — everyone should make great products and let consumers choose. IP law generally sides with Apple at this broad level, though there is a pretty good argument that it is competition, not monopoly, that drives great innovation in the IT space”, from Competing Views of Competition in Apple-Samsung Trial, Allthingsd.com, here.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
So Close, Yet So Far Apart: The EU and U.S. Visions of a New Privacy Framework
C. Wolf, W. Maxwell, here.
Embracing Magic
K. Walker, here. #TPIAspen
Quotation from Magical Patent Policy: "one third of all patent lawsuits now involve software
patents, way out of whack to the relative size of the industry. Software and Internet patents are litigated
eight times more often than other patents. Troll lawsuits cost productive U.S. companies $29 billion in
direct payouts last year, $80 billion a year when you take all costs into account, and more than $500
billion in the years since the Federal Circuit first authorized software patents. Worst of all, wasteful
patent litigation is costing customers real money and real choices in the devices they love.
This happens because software patents too often allow ownership of broad, sometimes trivial ideas. It
should not be this way. It is the execution as much as the idea that often matters in the
marketplace. Facebook wasn’t the first social network -- but it thrived because it executed well. Google
wasn’t first in search, but the way we executed has made our results better."
Quotation from Magical Competition Policy: "we should pay close attention to switching costs and lock-in. Since everyone is competing against
everyone else, consumers, advertisers, and publishers typically have lots of options. But those options
are less useful if walled gardens or proprietary formats make it difficult for users to switch. That’s why
Google created our Data Liberation Front, letting users easily export their data. The inability to move
your data -- like contacts, emails, and web history -- from one service to another can sometimes make
switching more difficult in ways that are bad for consumers and bad for competition."
Quotation from Magical Patent Policy: "one third of all patent lawsuits now involve software
patents, way out of whack to the relative size of the industry. Software and Internet patents are litigated
eight times more often than other patents. Troll lawsuits cost productive U.S. companies $29 billion in
direct payouts last year, $80 billion a year when you take all costs into account, and more than $500
billion in the years since the Federal Circuit first authorized software patents. Worst of all, wasteful
patent litigation is costing customers real money and real choices in the devices they love.
This happens because software patents too often allow ownership of broad, sometimes trivial ideas. It
should not be this way. It is the execution as much as the idea that often matters in the
marketplace. Facebook wasn’t the first social network -- but it thrived because it executed well. Google
wasn’t first in search, but the way we executed has made our results better."
Quotation from Magical Competition Policy: "we should pay close attention to switching costs and lock-in. Since everyone is competing against
everyone else, consumers, advertisers, and publishers typically have lots of options. But those options
are less useful if walled gardens or proprietary formats make it difficult for users to switch. That’s why
Google created our Data Liberation Front, letting users easily export their data. The inability to move
your data -- like contacts, emails, and web history -- from one service to another can sometimes make
switching more difficult in ways that are bad for consumers and bad for competition."
Panel - Internet Competition: Implications for Antitrust
ASPEN 2012 AGENDA, Technology Policy Institute
August 21, 2012
Susan Athey, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Harvard University and Visiting Researcher, Microsoft Research New England
Tim Bresnahan, Landau Professor in Technology and the Economy, Stanford University
Carlos Kirjner, Vice President and Senior Analyst, Internet, Alliance Bernstein
William Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy; Professor of Law; Director, Competition Law Center, George Washington University
Edith Ramirez, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Hal Varian, Chief Economist, Google
Thomas Lenard, President and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute (moderator)
Full Agenda here.
Full Agenda here.
- EU setting standards for competition policy globally
- Platform competition and multihoming
- Complements/substitutes
- counterfactuals and harm to competition by innovation
- leadership in the vertical stack
- lesson from MS: from complement to possible substitute
- leadership in the vertical stack
- lesson from MS: from complement to possible substitute
- dangerous competition threats ex-post and ex-ante (Google/Netscape)
- counterfactual analysis when high quality products are given away for free (multi-sided markets)
- screen control and design
- fines' irrelevance
- changing nature of switching costs (e.g. privacy issues suddenly relevant to Internet users and Google users in particular)
- the importance of behavioural economics in order to understand consumers' actions
2012 EU Survey on R&D Investment Business Trends
Here.
From the Report, p. 12:
"For some sectors, the expected R&D investment changes of the respondents are higher than the growth rates observed in the past (both for the responding companies and the whole sector): software & computer services (11% p.a. over the next three years), general industrials (6.8%), automobiles & parts (6.0%),
chemicals (5.5%), oil & gas producers (4.6%), aerospace & defence (4.1%), construction & materials (3.8%), technology hardware & equipment (3.5%), and fixed line telecommunications (2.6%).For a few other sectors,
the expected changes are lower than the past growth rates (both for the responding companies and the whole sector): electricity (4.6% p.a. over the next three years) and pharmaceuticals & biotechnology (3.2%)." (emphasis added).
From the Report, p. 12:
"For some sectors, the expected R&D investment changes of the respondents are higher than the growth rates observed in the past (both for the responding companies and the whole sector): software & computer services (11% p.a. over the next three years), general industrials (6.8%), automobiles & parts (6.0%),
chemicals (5.5%), oil & gas producers (4.6%), aerospace & defence (4.1%), construction & materials (3.8%), technology hardware & equipment (3.5%), and fixed line telecommunications (2.6%).For a few other sectors,
the expected changes are lower than the past growth rates (both for the responding companies and the whole sector): electricity (4.6% p.a. over the next three years) and pharmaceuticals & biotechnology (3.2%)." (emphasis added).
The Impact of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs in Canada
G. Barker, T. Maloney, here.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Copyright and the Digital Economy
Australian Law Reform Commission, Issues Paper, here.
Questions, among other hot topics, on cloud computing (p. 26 ff.), transformative use (p. 36 ff.), data and text mining (p. 48 ff.), a broad fair use exception (p. 71 ff.), and contracting out of copyright exceptions (p. 79 ff.).
Questions, among other hot topics, on cloud computing (p. 26 ff.), transformative use (p. 36 ff.), data and text mining (p. 48 ff.), a broad fair use exception (p. 71 ff.), and contracting out of copyright exceptions (p. 79 ff.).
Friday, August 17, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
INTEROPERABILITY AND REGULATION IN THE TECHNOLOGY MARKET: A COMPETITION ANALYSIS
SHUBHNEET INDERJIT KAUR, Competition Commission of India, here.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Online tracking: questioning the power of informed consent
N. van Eijk, N. Helberger, L. Kool, A. van der Plas and B. van der Sloot, here.
Is consumer welfare the (only) way forward? A re-appreciation of competition law objectives ante portas in both US and EU
A. Skourtis, kluwercompetitionlawblog.com, here.
Urheberrechtsrevision in der Schweiz: Arbeitsgruppe eingesetzt
Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement, hier.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Monday, August 06, 2012
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Friday, August 03, 2012
Diritto d'autore e ricerca scientifica: prove di dialogo per la crescita
S. Vezzoso (autrice di questo blog), Preprint qui.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Public Statement on the U.S. Proposal for a Limitations and Exceptions Clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
P. Jaszi, M. Carroll and S. Flynn, here.
Grading the Professor: Evaluating Bill Kovacic’s Contributions to Antitrust Engineering
D. Sokol, C. Wilson, J. Nord, here.
Open Government Data Deutschland
J. Klessmann, P. Denker, I. Schieferdecker, S. Schulz, et al., here.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Kicking and screaming at WIPO: Dragging the EU and the US to the negotiating table
IP Policy Committee Blog, here.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Cloud Computing: An Overview of the Technology and the Issues facing American Innovators
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, here.
Exclusivity in High-Tech Industries: Evidence from the French Case
P. Bougette, F. Marty, J. Pillot, P. Reis, here.
Copyright, Free Speech, and the Public's Right to Know: How Journalists Think about Fair Use
P. Aufderheide and P. Jaszi, here.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
WIPO SCCR24: Ruth Okediji - speaking on behalf of Nigeria - on the Development Agenda
Streamtext: "As other Delegations have said, the Delegation of Nigeria would like to appreciate and thank the Development Agenda Group for the statement and to support that statement. It was exactly 100 years ago and 30 days today that the first copyright act came to Africa by ordering counsel number 912 of the English crown. That copyright act extended to 11 countries, all of which remain independent countries today in the African continent. When one looks back at the developments both in international relations but also in particular in international copyright law, it is clear that this is a system that will always need adjustments. The pendulum swings sometimes too far in the area of protection. Sometimes too far in the area of deference and sometimes too far in the area of ignorance.
It is in fact important to note that the accomplishments today are only the first step in a very long journey with regard to the treaty for the visually impaired. It is in our view not so much what we have done here but what we must do that we must pay attention to. When we are addressing the needs of the visually impaired or those that have long been underserved by the system, there can be no question that our responses must be law, not sentiment. They must be a commitment, not just an ideal. They must be a promise, not just a wish.
In the end, copyright law is government policy, not private policy. It is not the entitlement of users, consumers, authors or intermediaries. We must have the leadership and the moral courage to establish principles that are sustainable, fair, and implemented at the highest levels of integrity. As the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt has said in his statement on behalf of the African Group, a balanced system is not just a system that articulates principles that cannot or will not see the light of day. Nigeria is proud to have produced the first blind physiotherapist, the first blind professor on the continent, and to have established the first organisation to train and teach the blind and the visually impaired.
The exceptions and limitations Agenda is a reflection of a long history and commitment to ensure that the copyright system and indeed all other systems support the full integration of individuals into a meaningful and productive life. We believe it is time to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. We believe it is time to recognize that the Development Agenda is serious and that it is one of the instruments by which as a community and as an institution we will be able to see the copyright system productive, adaptable and transformative not only for developing countries but for developed countries as well.
However, and whatever we feel about the WIPO Development Agenda, it is clear that the legal, social, and political reality is that an Intellectual Property system specifically an international copyright system that does not work for all will not work at all. Thank you, Mr. Chair."
It is in fact important to note that the accomplishments today are only the first step in a very long journey with regard to the treaty for the visually impaired. It is in our view not so much what we have done here but what we must do that we must pay attention to. When we are addressing the needs of the visually impaired or those that have long been underserved by the system, there can be no question that our responses must be law, not sentiment. They must be a commitment, not just an ideal. They must be a promise, not just a wish.
In the end, copyright law is government policy, not private policy. It is not the entitlement of users, consumers, authors or intermediaries. We must have the leadership and the moral courage to establish principles that are sustainable, fair, and implemented at the highest levels of integrity. As the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt has said in his statement on behalf of the African Group, a balanced system is not just a system that articulates principles that cannot or will not see the light of day. Nigeria is proud to have produced the first blind physiotherapist, the first blind professor on the continent, and to have established the first organisation to train and teach the blind and the visually impaired.
The exceptions and limitations Agenda is a reflection of a long history and commitment to ensure that the copyright system and indeed all other systems support the full integration of individuals into a meaningful and productive life. We believe it is time to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. We believe it is time to recognize that the Development Agenda is serious and that it is one of the instruments by which as a community and as an institution we will be able to see the copyright system productive, adaptable and transformative not only for developing countries but for developed countries as well.
However, and whatever we feel about the WIPO Development Agenda, it is clear that the legal, social, and political reality is that an Intellectual Property system specifically an international copyright system that does not work for all will not work at all. Thank you, Mr. Chair."
Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact
B. Björk and D. Solomon, here.
WIPO SCCR24: Ruth Okediji speaking on behalf of Nigeria on library issues
Streamtext: "The Nigerian delegation and also on behalf of the African Group wants to stress like other speakers the importance of this issue. Personally as the daughter of a librarian, I can emphasize the importance of libraries, particularly with ensuring that the access needs, the educational needs, the research needs of the population are met. In this regard parallel importation is of particular importance. Both in ensuring the vitality of libraries as cultural institutions but also to ensure that users not only in Developing Countries but in Developed Countries are able to access the rich trove of resources that are not often within national boundaries. So I think it's important that as this body begins to look at an international treaty on this issue, that the question of what libraries do, how they are able to preserve, to distribute works. And the necessary limitations that will facilitate parallel importation for libraries as well as library lending be of utmost priority. I think it is fair to say that the international copyright system and national copyright systems on the whole have only been successful because libraries have been in existence. I think that it is important to note that in the absence of parallel importation and limitations and exceptions on distribution right it would be virtually impossible for even the work we are doing in this body to go on. So without saying much at this point, again, just to stress the importance of this issue and to encourage that this body treats this with utmost seriousness"
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
On 24 March 2004 the European Commission fined Microsoft for abuse of dominant position (H/T Lewis Crofts). 18 years (age of maturity) l... -
Report to the California Law Review Commission Antitrust Law: Study B-750, here .
-
A. Blankertz, hier .
-
CMA, here .
-
Organized Money, here .
-
InternetLab, here .
-
Chalmermagne, here .