The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy

D. Solove, W. Hartzog, here. 

My take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/6

(Available episodes so far here).

Whilst it can be disputed whether the new WIPO Treaty is consistent with the history and spirit of the established legal framework, there is no actual provision preventing countries per se from entering into international agreements establishing maximum protection levels in the field of copyright law.

To see this, it should first be recalled that specific provisions enshrined in various treaties and conventions in the field, notably the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WCT, the WPPT, and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, contribute to the establishment of a rather complex international copyright system, at whose root lies the principle of national treatment, i.e. the non-discrimination rule in favour of foreign nationals from contracting states. According to this rule, the level of protection accorded to foreign works should not be lower than the protection granted to country of origin works. Put differently, whatever the level of protection under domestic law, the country is obliged to offer the same level of protection to nationals of other contracting countries. From its beginning, the international copyright system also contained obligations for contracting states to grant a minimum level of protection of foreign works, the so-called minimum rights. In the original 1886 Berne Convention, these rights were limited to translation, adaptation and public representation of dramatic or dramatico-musical works, but since those early days the area of minimum protection offered by binding international instruments has constantly and significantly broadened.

For contracting parties of the Berne Convention in particular, the relations to new international instruments are governed by Art. 20, which foresees the possibility to enter into “special agreements” among themselves “in so far as such agreements grant to authors more extensive rights than those granted by the Convention, or contain other provisions not contrary to this Convention” (emphasis added). Thus, the last part of the provision prevents a group of contracting countries from entering agreements among themselves providing a lower level of protection than the conventional minimum rights, if this is contrary to the Convention. Therefore, special agreements on limitations and exceptions, which by their very nature hamper the minimum Convention rights, are permitted only if they are otherwise Berne-compliant, i.e. if they are compatible with the three-step test framework set out in Art. 9(2) for exceptions to the reproduction right, or with other Berne exceptions or limitations, such as for instance Art. 10(2) covering teaching.

Furthermore, Art. 20 of the Berne Convention implies that contracting parties are prevented from entering agreements not affecting the minimum rights as such, but violating the principle of national treatment. The non-discrimination rule means that exceptions and limitations foreseen by a special agreement should equally apply to local and foreign works. In fact, if they applied only to foreign works, these works would be less protected than domestic works. Thus, if a country, in compliance with the newer agreement, introduced mandatory exceptions for foreign works without providing for substantially equivalent exceptions applying to domestic works, it would act “contrary to this Convention” within the meaning of Art. 20. 

(To be continued)

National Treatment in Copyright and Related Rights: How Much Work Does it Do?

R. Bruneis, here. 

Privacy Challenges of BigData: View From Lifeguard’s Chair

E. Ramirez, here. Video here.

Deconstructing Creative Destruction

Aspen Forum 2013, Video here.

Hotel bookings could get cheaper as tourism giants propose remedy in price-fixing row

Telegraph.co.uk, here. 

A Perspective on the Merits of the Antitrust Objections to the Failed Google Books Settlement

P. Samuelson, here.

The Swedish Model: Or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Ebook Lending

Theliteraryplatform.com, here. 

FTC Submits Proposed Amicus Brief Concerning “No-Authorized-Generic” Commitments in Drug Companies’ Patent Settlements

Ftc.gov, here.

Comcast Adds Carrots to Sticks

Copyrightandtechnology.com, Here.

Bank account switching service to launch in September in the UK

BBC.co.uk, here.

Chair of EU Article 29 Working Party writes to Viviane Reding about PRISM

Here.

The Market Realities that Undermined the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Google

G. Manne,  W. Rinehart, here.

Mythbusting Fair Use for Education

Digital.org.au, here.

TTIP Update II

G. Moody, here. 

My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/5

(Previous episodes here).

From its early beginnings, WBU’s 2000 policy action on the international norm-setting stage had two pragmatic objectives. First, WBU was firmly of the opinion that the copyright regime of exceptions and limitations for the visually impaired of the world needed improvement, because access to published works was notoriously inadequate, and previous experience had shown that this important objective could not be left to the goodwill of national legislators alone. Second, the international copyright framework needed to be framed in such as a way as to allow for the import and export of works in accessible formats, thus creating a “global lending library” benefiting in particular those visually impaired persons living in economically weak countries.

According to a number of delegations and experts, however, the fulfillment of the WBU’s clearly formulated policy objectives would have run counter to existing, established principles of international copyright protection.

At the origin of the countries’ early willingness to engage in international copyright norm-setting activities, arguably, lies the strong interest in assuring the protection abroad of their domestic authors. In fact, absent obligations at the international level, domestic authors, normally, are not protected in foreign countries. With regard to the protection of domestic print disabled persons, however, national legislation would regularly suffice, hence no clear need for international norm-setting in favour of this specific category of users. Additionally, print disabled persons travelling to developed countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations already available in those countries’ national legislations. A further argument derived from international copyright principles is that copyright obligations stemming out of treaties and conventions are traditionally limited to the protection of foreign works. Part of the solution to the “book famine” envisaged by the WBU, however, would have required international obligations directly protecting domestic users. Finally, no “one size fits all” exceptions and limitations would have been suitable, as proven in particular by the very existence of the “controlling,” yet flexible three-step test.

(To be continued, hopefully next week).

State of the Union Russia–EU: Prospects for Partnership in the Changing World

S. Lavrov, here. 

Europe’s policy options for a dynamic and trustworthy development of the Internet of Things

RAND Europe, here. Presentation here. 

Full Attorney Fees ($9m) Awarded for Pattern of Vexatious Litigation Strategy, Affirmed on Appeal

Patentlyo.com, here. 

Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit Challenging Proposed Merger Between US Airways and American Airlines

Justice.gov, here. 

The Implications of Improved Attribution and Measurability for Antitrust and Privacy in Online Advertising Markets

C. Tucker, here. 

Another Look at Privacy

A. Grunes, here. 

Privacy, Antitrust, and Power

F. Pasquale, here. 

White House “Copyright Czar” Steps Down

Variety.com, here.

(Interesting Acting Head: the well-known Howard Shelanski, here).

My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/4

(Available episodes so far here).

Discussions at the international level revived in 2000, when the WBU General Assembly in Melbourne adopted a resolution on copyright and access to information in alternate format. In particular, the General Assembly decided to call on the WIPO to “co-operate in the formulation of detailed national and international legislation which will afford full and equitable access by blind and partially sighted people to all copyright-protected material.” By the time the WBU, together with the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA, Section of Libraries of the Blind), renewed contacts with WIPO in 2000, the organization’s ambitious policy agenda for the benefit of the visually impaired was largely set. In the following years, WBU intensified its presence at the WIPO Standing Committee for Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which in the meanwhile had started working on the topic of exceptions and limitations. At the Twelfth Session of the SCCR (SCCR 12), Chile proposed the inclusion on the agenda of an item regarding “certain limitations and exceptions,” and two years later, at SCCR 15, Judith Sullivan presented the WIPO Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired. Formally, the topic of exceptions and limitations was first included on the Committee’s agenda of its Sixteenth Session.

At SCCR 18 (May, 2009), Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, later joined by Mexico, presented a Proposal Relating to Limitations and Exceptions: Treaty Proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU). SCCR 20 saw the introduction and preliminary discussion of three more proposals, and at SCCR 22 (June, 2011) a large consensus eventually emerged among delegates on merging three of the negotiating texts together into a “Proposal on an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Persons with Print Disabilities”. The revised draft text of “an international instrument/treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities,” the basic proposal for the substantive provisions of the treaty further negotiated in Marrakesh, was finally adopted at the April 2013 special session of the SCCR.

The Impact of the Acquisition and Use of Patents on the Smartphone Industry

Study prepared for WIPO, Center on Law and Information Policy (Fordham Law School), here. 

The Dangerous Adventurism of the United States Trade Representative – Lifting the Ban against Apple Products Unnecessarily Opens a Can of Worms in Patent Law

R. Epstein, here. 

Subscription-based service for e-books in the Dutch language zone?

Futureofcopyright.com, here.

My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/3

(Available episodes so far here).

In earlier times, a few national legislators already recognized the necessity of specific public policy intervention for the benefit of the print disabled. In 1964, the Sweden/BIRPI Study Group formed in preparation for the Stockholm Conference of Revision of the Berne Convention identified “reproduction in special characters for the use of the blind” and “sound recordings of literary forks for the use of the blind” amongst the exceptions provided for in some national legislations. At the international level, Brazil was the first country to raise the matter of the copyright status of visually impaired persons at the 1977 joint UNESCO/WIPO sessions, thereby proposing to set up a working group whose task would have been “to study suitable ways and means of facilitating the free flow of books and publications designed for the visually impaired.” The Committees decided to appoint the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind (WCWB - which later, together with the International Federation of the Blind, was to form the World Blind Union) to carry out a preliminary study for the Secretariats, supplemented by a brief overview of the solutions which had already emerged in national legislations. In 1979, the WCWB Study (the1979 Study) was submitted to the two Committees, and circulated to Member States for comments. At the 1981 WIPO/UNESCO joint sessions, the delegations of Brazil and of the United States of America proposed to set up a working group, in which representatives of the WCWB and of the International Publishers Association were invited to take part in an advisory capacity.The Secretariats of UNESCO and WIPO commissioned a study to Wanda Noel, a Canadian independent expert, on the application of the Berne Convention “to material for the visually and auditory handicapped” (the1981 Study).

Noel’s analysis contained draft model provisions assisting in the formulation of national legislation for visually impaired persons, which in 1982 were largely endorsed by the Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Protected by Copyright, chaired by Mihály Ficsor. In particular, the working group adopted two alternative model provisions, the main difference being that Alternative A was an outright exception, permitting the reproduction “without the consent of the author and without payment of remuneration,” whereas Alternative B consisted in a compulsory licence, requiring the payment of remuneration for use. At the following WIPO/UNESCO joint meetings, the Chairman of the working group expressed concerns as regards the model provisions, stating that the “this preferential treatment is a minimum and a more reserved attitude of representatives of authors would endanger the positive image of copyright and the public support for solving the fundamental problems of copyright protection.” Some countries, in particular Australia, Austria, Israel, the Netherlands and Norway, however, were strongly in favour of Alternative B, providing for a compulsory licence. Austria and Norway in particular stressed the importance of maintenance of the “symbolic nature of remuneration.” Striking a more restrictive tone, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America held that “exceptions to copyright were not necessary, as negotiations on a voluntary basis between the handicapped and the representatives of authors generally produced satisfactory solutions.” In conclusion, the Committees recommended further work in this field, and the question was kept on the Committees’ respective agendas. In the following, the Secretariats drew up a preparatory document (the 1985 Study) focusing on a number of points highlighted by the Committees, with the assistance of the same expert who had drafted the 1981 analysis. The more recent study expanded on previous discussions, by drawing a line between the “production of special media materials,” addressed by means of an exception or a compulsory license in domestic copyright law, and the cross-border distribution of those materials, “prohibited because of importation provisions contained in the copyright laws of most countries.” Two solutions were suggested to the “dual problem of production and distribution:” either the removal of those provisions obstructing international exhaustion, or the formulation of an “entirely new international instrument which would permit production of special media materials and services in member states, and the distribution of those materials and services amongst member states without restrictions.” The 1985 Study concluded by recommending the formulation of the new international instrument, as “it would solve both production and distribution problems by providing a legal mechanism for sharing materials and services for the handicapped around the world.” At the 1985 WIPO and UNESCO joint Committees’ meetings, Brazil, Guinea and Portugal manifested considerable interested in an international instrument.

(Next episode: The discussions' revival at the international level in the new millenium)

Apple’s Legal Wins Show No Clear Victor in Patent War

Bloomberg.com, here. 

Judge Considers Limits on Apple’s Future E-Book Deals

Nytimes.com, here.

Copyright and Compulsory Licenses - Compulsory Collectives Command Caution

M. Sag (Presentation), here (pptx - not pdf - file, thanks @carlopiana). 

Social Media and Copyright Law in Conflict (UGC)

Project-disco.org, here. 

On the question of copyright infringement by hyperlink (in email)

Pearson Education, Inc. et Al., Plaintiffs, V. Lazar Ishayev and Yelena Leykina, No. 11 Civ. 5052 (PAE), here. 

A Century of International Potash Intrigue

Bloomberg.com, here. 

My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/2

(Post n.1 here).

Paradoxically, perhaps, the question of an adequate protection of the rights to read of people with print disabilities became particularly pressing with the advent of the digital society.

For the general reading population, the pervasive deployment of information and communication technologies makes available many innovative and exciting ways in which copyright material can be enjoyed. The same technology has also pushed doors of opportunity open to provide new solutions to meet the needs of print disabled people. For instance, a visually impaired person can now take a traditional printed text and convert it to an accessible format by using main stream and increasingly affordable technology like Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software, scanning devices, screen readers or an electronic (refreshable) Braille display. Moreover, e-books hold the promise of providing greatly increased accessibility for print disabled persons compared to the analogue media. As it already happened in the past, new general purpose technology, i.e. innovations not conceived having the needs of specific categories of users in mind, can greatly benefit also the print disabled. Thus, Thomas Edison correctly anticipated in 1878 that the then newly conceived phonograph player would have led, eventually, to the availability of “[p]honographic books, which will speak to blind people without effort on their part.”

Even with our propitious technological advances, however, print disabled people still encounter significant difficulties in accessing written resources. Electronic texts, for instance, are often inaccessible because of the non-availability of specific text-to-speech or text-to-braille capabilities, or because of the need to buy dedicated, and often relatively expensive, equipment. Moreover, deliberate hardware limitations such as those found in popular e-readers hamper accessibility. Most importantly, whilst written materials today are commonly created as digital works, the formats employed by the publishing industry are seldom genuinely accessible, delaying or even blocking “off the shelf access” for the print disabled.

[This blog's "Feuilleton de l'été 2013" continues - possibly next week]

Francis Gurry on the occasion of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples

Here.

Leistungsschutzrecht: Wie geht's jetzt weiter?

Telemedicus, hier. 

Minority Report? The EC’s public consultation on minority shareholdings

Kluwercompetitionlawblog.com, here. 

Google told German newspapers to opt in, and they did

Columbia Journalism Review, here. 

My take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/1

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide encounter severe distress in trying to access the written word in their education and private life. Only by employing appropriate technologies, such as for instance the method first developed by Louis Braille in 1829, written works can to be made accessible to people who suffer from print disabilities. The creation of accessible versions of copyrighted works and their distribution to the beneficiary persons, however, normally require the consent of the respective rightholders. 

Whilst international treaties and conventions in the area of intellectual property generally permit exceptions and limitations to the rights of the IP holder to be provided, their nature and scope have been largely left to national legislators to determine. By 1982, only seven member States of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) enacted provisions in that respect, and twenty-five years later exceptions and limitations for the benefit of print disabled person were present only in 57 member States - out of the then 184-strong overall membership.

According to a study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of the Blind and covering books published in the United Kingdom in the period  2004-2010, just some 7 per cent of them were accessible to blind people and others living with a print disability, 0.25 per cent of which  in traditional formats like hard copy braille and human voice audio, and 6.80 as accessible e-books.   Unsurprisingly, the situation is considered to be much worse in developing and least-developed countries, where the majority of persons with visual impairments or with other print disabilities live.

In 2006, the text of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) was adopted and entered into force two years later. The text of Convention strongly reaffirms the right to read for people with disability. The WIPO Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled, concluded on June 27, 2013, aims at addressing the self-evident paucity of available works in accessible format copies (“book famine”). 

The newly adopted Treaty sets an elaborate international legal framework in the form of, first, an obligation for contracting parties to adopt in their respective national legislations exceptions and limitations that permit the reproduction, distribution and making available of published works in accessible formats. Second, the Treaty provides for the cross-border exchange of accessible format works created based on limitations and exceptions.

The Marrakesh Treaty takes a resolute step towards a more satisfactory balance between the print disabled persons’ legitimate need to access copyrighted works and the necessary protection of the rights of the copyright holders. The Treaty is also a première on the international stage, being the first multilateral, binding legal instrument primarily devoted to the establishment of exceptions and limitations in copyright law. In fact, much of the considerable efforts put into the development of the international copyright framework so far focused almost exclusively on defining and protecting the rights needed to promote the important aim of encouraging and rewarding creativity. Restriction or limitations upon authors justified by the broader “public interest” were almost exclusively left to national legislators, albeit within the boundaries set by the relevant treaties and conventions.

The so-called three-step test, arguably the most significant among those boundaries, took central stage throughout the nearly five years of arduous Treaty negotiations. The final text adopted in Marrakesh contains one direct reference to the test in the Preamble, two in Agreed statements, Article 5.4 deals with the so called "Berne gap", and Article 11 sets the obligation, for the Contracting Parties adopting the measures necessary to ensure the application of the Marrakesh Treaty,  to comply with the three-step test as formulated in the different international mandatory legal instruments under which they are bound. While the language of the three-step test has not changed since its original formulation in  the1967 Stockholm Revision of the Berne Convention, its interpretation remains highly controversial. In this respect, the adopted Treaty is also particularly relevant since it sheds some light on questions that timely, subsequent revisions of the Berne Convention should have already helped clarify.

(to be continued, hopefully soon; ACW).

For further material see the label visually impaired and copyright (actually a misnomer, in light of the final Treaty)

All future episodes here.

Public libraries and 'big six' publishers fight over e-books

Latimes.com, here. 

Understanding Behavioral Antitrust

A. Tor, here. 

The Value of User-Generated Content

Turner Hopkins (for Ofcom), here. 

Amazon, Kobo and Sony petition FCC to exempt e-readers from accessibility laws

Gigaom.com, here. 

Publishers in E-Book Antitrust Case File Objection to DOJ's Proposed Punishment for Apple

Here. 

Apple succeeds on appeal: dismissed ITC patent case against Google's Motorola Mobility alive again

Fosspatents.com, here. 

Copyright and the Digital Economy

Submission by the Australian Digital Alliance and Australian Libraries Copyright Committee in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Discussion Paper, here. 

Access to Intellectual Property for Innovation: Evidence on Problems and Coping Strategies from German Firms

E. Müller, I. Cockburn, M. MacGarvie, here (to be discussed at the WIPO, here)

L’Agcom e il fallimento della legge antipirateria francese

B. Saetta, qui. 

Commissioner Wright Responds to Section 5 Symposium

Truthonthemarket.com, here. 

On the newly proposed Italian Regulation on Copyright Protection in Audiovisual Media Services

M. Bellezza, here.

A User Guide to the Marrakesh Treaty

J. Band, here. 

Michael Froman's decision in the Apple/Samsung ITC patent dispute, and the USTR trade agenda

Keionline.org, here. 

Survey: Most Italian Internet Users Think Ignoring Copyright Harms Publishers, But Not Society As A Whole

TechDirt.com, here. 

Are universities collecting too much information on staff and students?

TheGuardian.com, here. 

Wettbewerbsexperte Justus Haucap: "Leistungsschutzrecht ist komplett gescheitert"

Horizont.net, hier. 

Google and Antitrust: Five Approaches to an Evolving Issue

M. Carrier, here. 

White House overrules ITC import ban on Apple products

Here.

DOJ proposed remedy to address Apple Inc.’s conduct in e-books case

Here.

Green paper on copyright policy, creativity and innovation in the digital economy

US Department of Commerce, here.

A Study on Patent Thickets

H. Hall, C. Helmers, G. von Graevenitz, C. Rosazza-Bondibene, here.

Draft legislation on copyright exception for people with disabilities

Ipo.gov.uk, here. 

AP-Meltwater Settlement Dims Prospects for European Ruling on Internet Browsing

Project-disco.org, here. 

Copyright Challenges in a MOOC Environment

Educause.edu, here. 

Standard Essential Patent Disputes and Antitrust Law

US Senate Judiciary Committee - Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Written testimonies here. 

The Fantec decision: German court holds distributor responsible for FOSS compliance

Opensource.com, here. 

The Competitive Advantages of Data Privacy

Businessweek.com, here. 

SEP Injunctions under Article 102 TFEU

Chillingcompetition.com, here. 

At what cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax

AU Parliament, here. 

Ad Blocking and Platform Competition

R. Picker, here. 

Springer-Medien weiter bei Google News: Leistungsschutzrecht in der Praxis gescheitert

T3n.de, hier.

Vier gewinnt: Fusion von E-Plus und O2 dürfte Wettbewerb erheblich schwächen

J. Haucap, hier. 

FSFE objects to claims of 'predatory pricing' in Free Software

Fsfe.org, here

Google Loses Bid to Delay U.K. Trial Until After EU Probe

Bloomberg, here.

Antitrust avvia istruttoria nei confronti del Consiglio nazionale forense

Provvedimento qui. 

Survey of Canadian Authors on Educational Copying

Writersunion.ca, here. 

Négociations délicates avec la Caisse des Dépôts pour financer ReLIRE

Actualitté.com, ici. 

Apple could pay nearly $500 million in ebook case

Gigaom.com, here. 

Section 5: Principles of Navigation

M. Ohlhausen, here. 

Bundeskartellamt bewertet Bestpreisklausel des Hotelportals HRS immer noch kritisch

Pressemitteilung, hier. 

Vertical Restraints In Electronic Commerce: An Economic Perspective

Lear Competition Note, here. 

EU Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Penguin in e-books market

Press Release, here. 

Revente de fichiers numériques d’occasion

Laquadrature.net. ici. 

Privacy and Antitrust: Underpants Gnomes, the First Amendment, and Subjectivity

J. Cooper, here. 

FTC Finalizes Settlement in Google Motorola Mobility Case

FTC.gov, here. 

Canada’s Competition Tribunal rejects commissioner’s challenge to Visa and MasterCard rules

Nortonrosefulbright.com, here. 

The History and Future of the World Trade Organization

C VanGrasstek, here. 

Projet de loi relatif à la consommation (action de groupe)

B. Lasserre, ici. 

Cloud Computing: An Overview of the Technology and the Issues facing American Innovators

Hearing, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, here. 

Crowdsourced Finnish copyright bill headed to parliament

Pcworld.com, here. 

Pay-for-Delay Deals: Limiting Competition and Costing Consumers

FTC, here.

Thyssen muss weitere Millionenstrafe zahlen

Faz.net, hier. 

Point d'étape sur les actions répressives à l'encontre de Google en Europe

Cnil.fr, ici.

South African Competition Tribunal confirms settlement with 13 construction firms

Bdlive.co.za, here. 

Why I think the Apple e-books antitrust decision will (or at least should) be overturned

G. Manne, here.

Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study

M. Wakefield, L. Hayes, S. Durkin, R. Borland, here. 

EU Kills Net Neutrality, Threatens Online Openness

G. Moody, here. 

Legal aspects of free and open source software - compilation of briefing notes

European Parliament, here. 

Statutory Audit Services: Provisional Remedy Package

UK Competition Commission, here. 

Protecting Shared and Widely Distributed Traditional Knowledge: Issues, challenges and options

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, here. 

Adventures in the Netherlands - Spotify, Piracy and the new Dutch experience

Spotify, here. 

Issues for Two-Sided Platforms in Canadian Competition Law

G. Bishop, here. 

e-books: Vertical participation in hub and spoke agreements

Competition Bulletin, here. 

Becker on reforming the patent system

Becker-Posner blog, here.

BGH: UsedSoft

Pressemitteilung hier.

The Impact of Reverse-Fixed Payments on Competition

G. Schaffer (for the OFT), here.

Swedish Court asks preliminary questions to ECJ about linking to content

Futureofcopyright.com, here.

Oracle's Reply Brief in Google Copyright Case

Fosspatents.com, here

Competition in the Context of Financial Crisis

American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law 60th Spring Meeting, the Antitrust source,here.

Miracle In Marrakesh: “Historic” Treaty For Visually Impaired Agreed

IP-watch.org, here.

AG Jääskinen on search engines and lack of responsibility for personal data appearing on web pages they process

Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, here. 

Behavioural Economics and Competition Policy

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, here (pdf file). Oxera Report (pdf file), here. 

European Publishers, Others Slam Google On “Abusive” Practices, Ask EC To Reject Google Proposal

TechCrunch.com, here. 

New Draft Text Shows Progress On WIPO Treaty On Books For The Print-Disabled

Ip-watch.org, here. 

“Reverse Payment” Settlements Subject to Greater Antitrust Scrutiny: Implications of Supreme Court FTC v. Actavis Ruling

McDermott, Will & Emery, here. 

Engagements pour mettre fin à l'« inertie du marché »: Fret maritime Europe-Antilles

Autorité de la Concurrence, ici. 

Commissioner Wright Moves to Advance Discussion on FTC Act Section 5

A. Murino, here. 

The Fate of Apple and Antitrust: Overcoming Confusion About the eBooks Case

C. Sagers, here. 

WIPO Negotiators Reach Breakthrough On “3-Step Test” In Treaty For Blind

Ip-watch.org, here.

Eurocities: Statement on Open Data

Here.

USPTO releases 142 pages of emails sent by MPAA to USPTO over the treaty for the blind

Keionline.org, here.

Technological Protection Measures and the Blind: Why Circumvention for the Purposes of Access is Crucial

Benetech, here.

The Apple e-book antitrust case: The summations

CnnMoney, here.

It’s Settled: Pay-for-Delay Challenges Had a Big Week

M. Carrier, here.

How EU Competition Law Applies To Data Collection Issues

Jdsupra.com, here.

UK Draft Statutory Exceptions for Education, Libraries & Research

Ipo.gov.uk, here.

Members Of US Congress Seek Pressure On India Over IP Rights

Ip-watch.org, here. 

Here’s Apple’s Closing Slide Deck in E-Book Case, and the DOJ’s, Too

Allthingsd.com, here. 

Genèse ReLIRE : la présomption des droits numériques et l'op-out

ActuaLitte.com, ici. 

Vatican calls for copyright changes to give better access to the blind

Catholicnews.com, here.

Rechtsstreit um exklusiven Zugriff von Juris auf Urteile des BVerfG geht weiter

Institut für Urheber- und Medienrecht, hier. 

Putting Innovation Incentives Back in the Patent-Antitrust Interface

T. Cheng, here. 

Propuesta de Nuevo Código Mercantil

Aquì.

Marrakesh, delegates propose two pages of text on commercial availability

Keionline.org, here.

Bahn 2013: Reform zügig umsetzen!

Monopolkommission, Sondergutachten 64, hier.

Open data : nouvelle directive adoptée par le Parlement européen

Lagazettedescommunes.com, ici.

EU Commission fines Lundbeck and other pharma companies for delaying market entry of generic medicines

Press Release, here. 

Google’s Effort to Skirt Regulation May Invite More Scrutiny

Dealbook.nytimes.com, here. 

The European Orphan Works Directive: An EIFL Guide

Eifl.net, here.

Standpunkt zu vertikalen Preisbindungen

Bwb.gv.at, hier. 

Oeuvres indisponibles : le Conseil d'Etat questionne Matignon et Valois

Actualitte.com, ici. 

Test Of Political Flexibility In Final Lap For WIPO Treaty For The Blind Next Week

IP-watch.org, here. 

Google faces EU antitrust probe over Android licensing

ZdNet, here. 

UK Government Response to Shakespeare Review of Public Sector Information

Gov.uk, here. 

Ordini professionali: restrizione della la concorrenza attraverso intese finalizzate a reintrodurre le tariffe abrogate dalla legge

I749-I750-I753, qui. 

Trasporto marittimo: sanzionate Moby, Snav, Grandi Navi Veloci e Marinvest per intesa restrittiva della concorrenza

I743, qui.

Just-in-time inventions and the development of standards: How firms use opportunistic strategies to obtain standard-essential patents (SEPs)

B. Kang and R. Bekkers, here. 

Supreme Court Says Human Genes Aren't Patentable

Online.wsj.com, here. 

First comment on the Commission's proposed directive on antitrust damage action

P. Buccirossi, here. 

Institutional experimentation? The integration of competion law and regulation enforcement in Spain

F. Marcos, J. Mora-Sanguinetti, here. 

Emerging Economies: Different Economic Problems, Same Competition Law?

S. Ennis, Presentation here 

The UK Competition and Markets Authority: a new institution to tackle a new set of challenges

A. Chrisholm, here. 

EU unlocks a great new source of online innovation (open data)

N. Kroes, here. 

EU Commission explores copyright questions related to data mining

Futureofcopyright.com, here. 

Wettbewerb: Preiskartelle überall?

Wirtschaftsdienst.eu, hier. 

US Chamber letter to USPTO opposes fair use, expresses "concerns" about WIPO treaty for blind

Keionline.org, here. 

EU Commission published proposals for private antitrust litigation

McDermott Will & Emery, here. 

Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013/03, here. 

Kartellschadensersatz

Kartellblog.de, hier. 

La UE agiliza la petición de daños y perjuicios para víctimas de cárteles

Cincodias.com, aquì.

Commission proposes legislation to facilitate damage claims by victims of antitrust violations

Press Release, here. 

EU to slap ban on online blocking

Euobserver.com, here. 

When Your Data Is Currency, What Does Your Privacy Cost?

Npr.org, here. 

Microsoft brief stresses that standard-setting would be a 'blatant antitrust violation' without FRAND

Fosspatents.com, here. 

Diritto d'autore e biblioteche in chiave evolutiva

S. Vezzoso (autrice del blog), presentazione qui. 

Royaume-Uni: Une Loi-cadre à propos des oeuvres orphelines et des licences collectives étendues

Axelbeelen.wordpress.com, ici. 

Informe al Anteproyecto de Ley de Reforma de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil

CNC, aquì.

Who is a patent troll?

Bostonglobe.com, here. 

British booksellers call on government to follow France in fight against Amazon

Mhpbooks.com, here. 

Draft legislation on copyright exceptions in the UK

Ipo.gov.uk, here.
Drafts for the other exceptions will be released as soon as they are ready.

Télévision payante: trois offres de référence de Groupe Canal Plus approuvées

Autorité de la concurrence, ici. 

Alegaciones de la Conferencia de Rectores a la reforma de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual

Crue.org, aquì.

Vollständiger Ausschluss der Akteneinsicht (auch gegenüber dem Kronzeugen) verstößt gegen EU-Recht

L. Maritzen, hier (Kartellblog.de).

Members of Congress call on FTC to prosecute patent trolls

TheVerge.com, here. 

Student Privacy in the Cloud Computing Ecosystem

Berkman Center for Internet & Society, here. 

Erste Lesung des Gesetzes zur Nutzung verwaister und vergriffener Werke

Urheberrecht.org, hier. 

App Developers File Amicus Brief in Support of Google

Groklaw.net, here. 

Defending an Open, Global, Secure, and Resilient Internet

Council of Foreign Relations, here (pdf file).

A Puzzling Graph on eBook Prices and the DOJ Case

J. Gans, here. 

CJEU on action for damages and access to the file

Case C‑536/11, Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG et al., here. 

Pallante, Goodlatte Lay Framework For US Copyright Review

Ip-watch.org, here. 

EU kann sich nicht auf Novelle zu Datenschutz einigen

Zeit.de, hier. 

Australia wants fair use (and so will you?)

Ipkat.com, here. 

Believe it or not: Your social media information can be a trade secret

Wraltechwire.com, here. 

Creating an open database of public art in Sweden

Blog.wikimedia.org, here. 

Publishers Tell of Disputes With Apple on E-Book Prices

Nytimes.com, here. 

Concorrenza e crisi: audizione di Pitruzzella alla Camera

Qui.

Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers

M. Popofsky and M. Laufert, here. 

Meet the man who created the 'linchpin' of Apple's e-book strategy

Tech.fortune.cnn.com, here. 

Obama faces high stakes dilemma in Apple-Samsung battle

Ft.com, here. 

Brief of Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Authors Guild v. Hathitrust

M. Jockers, M. Sag, J. Schultz, here. 

HathiTrust: Amici Curiae Brief of Beneficient Technology and Learning Ally

Here. 

Leaked mandate for EU-US trade deal opens floodgate to lawsuits by corporations

Corporateeurope.org, here. 

The Future of Books and Libraries in the Electronic Age

R. Picker, here (Video, at 35:02).

Tensions grow as data-mining discussions fall apart

Nature.com, here.

The Case for Fair Use in Australia

Australian Law Reform Commission, here. 

MS on White House "Patent Trolls" Proposal

Blogs.technet.com, here. 

Towards Empirical Analysis Of Open Government Data Initiatives

B. Ubaldi, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, here. 

Council Draft Compromise Text on the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation

Huntonprivacyblog.com, here. 

Kommunale Monopole sind gute Monopole, die keinerlei Aufsicht bedürfen

J. Haucap (Edgeworthblogs.wordpress.com), hier. 

Simple but Wrong or Complex but More Accurate? The Case for an Exclusive Dealing‐Based Approach to Evaluating Loyalty Discounts

J. Wright, here. 

Court Says Copying Journal Articles To Show Prior Art In Patent Proceedings Is Fair Use

Techdirt.com, here. 

ITC on Apple patent infringement and import prohibition

Inv. No. 337-TA-794, here. 

PwC: the U.S. consumer ebook market will be bigger than the print book market by 2017

PaidContent.org, here. 

Pfizer's slams India's patent regime, says Indian standards are vague and malleable

Economictimes.indiatimes.com, here. 

Le ministère de la Culture s’intéresse au marché de l’occasion numérique

Pcinpact.com, here. 

President Obama Comes Out Strongly Against Patent Trolls; Here Are The Details

TechDirt.com, here. 

Library Copyright Alliance files amicus brief in HathiTrust case

Here. 

Avances en el programa de clemencia

Expansion.com, aquì. 

Protecting innovators from frivolous litigation and ensuring the highest-quality patents

White House Task Force On High-Tech Patent Issues, here. 

US v. Apple - DOJ Opening Statement

Here. 

What sort of disruption of broadcasters' distribution can be disrupted?

Taylorwessing.com, here. 

Device From Israeli Start-Up Gives the Visually Impaired a Way to Read

Nytimes.com, here. OrCam's promotional video here. 

Amid reports of new Apple streaming music service, antitrust violation may be obstacle

Washingtonpost.com, here. 

World Blind Union Response To The Business Lobby Against The Proposed Wipo Treaty For Visually Impaired People

Worldblindunion.org, here (Word file)

Rapport Lescure : du positif pour le livre numérique en bibliothèque

Bibliobsession.net, ici. 

The EU, safeguarding the open internet for all

N. Kroes, here. 

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court on PSI fee determination

Here. 

White House effort to take aim at 'patent trolls'

Politico.com, here. 

Innovative but influential: The OFT’s economic research programme

A. Fletcher, here (p. 6 f.).

Carrier: Classic Antitrust/IP Scholarship

Writtendescription.blogspot.com, here. 

Die Kommission sammelt sich in Sachen Sammelklagen – nicht nur im Kartellrecht

Kartellblog.de, hier. 

Using the Antitrust Laws to Police Patent Privateering

Patentlyo.com, here. 

Apple lawyers put judge in ebook antitrust case on defensive

TheVerge.com, here. 

Justice Department releases slides showing alleged Apple ebook conspiracy

PaidContent.com, here. 

Trial on E-Book Price-Fixing Puts Apple in Spotlight

Nytimes.com, here. 

Revised Presidency compromise proposal for the collective management Directive

Here. 

Oracle v. Google: Brief of Amici Curiae IP Professors in Support of Defendant-Cross Appellant and Affirmance

Here. 

Datenschutz: LobbyPlag meldet sich zurück

Gutjahr.biz, hier. 

Towards a Google Tax in Italy too?

The1709blog.blogspot.com, here. 

The Arithmetic of Fair Dealing at the Supreme Court of Canada

G. D'Agostino, here. 

La rete Telecom tra regole e controllo

Chicago-blog.it, qui. 

The NFB/MPAA statement on the coming VIP treaty negotiations

Keionline.org, here. 

2013 Internet Trends

KPCB, here. 

From Microsoft to Google: What Have We Learned about Antitrust in Technology Platform Markets?

R. Picker, here (lecture slides).

Smart Disclosure and Consumer Decision Making: Report of the Task Force on Smart Disclosure

US National Science and Technology Council, here. 

Apple and mobile networks: European Commission's Questionnaire

Guardian.co.uk, here. 

Modernising the European Copyright Framework

I. Hargreaves, B. Hugenholtz, here. 

Das Recht auf Datenübertragbarkeit in der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung

Telemedicus.info, hier. 

Reconciling Personal Information in the United States and European Union

P. Schwartz, D. Solove, here. 

Investing in America’s Future Through Innovation How the Debate Over the Smart Phone Patent Wars (Re)Raises Issues at the Foundation of Long-Term Incentive Systems

D. Kappos, here. 

MPAA, US Blind Federation Urge Narrow Focus In WIPO Treaty For Blind

IP-watch.org, here. 

Big Six Matrix for Ebook License Comparisons

Americanlibrariesmagazine.org, here. 

The Competitive Consequences of Most-Favored-Nation Provisions

J. Baker, J. Chevalier, here. 

The Value of Research Data

R. Costas, I. Meijer, Z. Zahedi and P. Wouters, here. 

RIAA: There's Been No Innovation Stifling Here!

Techdirt.com, here. 

Petition to issue joint enforcement guidelines on the patent policies of standard setting organizations

AAI, here. 

Ryanair may have to reduce its stake in Aer Lingus

UK Competition Commission, here. 

Brazil: Assessment Of The First Year Of The New Antitrust Law

B. De Luca Drago, here. 

'Neutral' Search as a Basis for Antitrust Action?

M. Lao, here. 

When the State Harms Competition ― The Role for Competition Law

E. Fox, D. Healey, here. 

Wellcome Trust extends open access policy to include scholarly monographs and book chapters

Wellcome.ac.uk, here. 

Comment effacer des informations me concernant sur un moteur de recherche ?

CNIL.fr, ici. 

Stakeholders representing the research sector, SMEs and open access publishers withdraw from Licences for Europe

Blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk, here. 

The Consensus Among Economists on Multisided Platforms and its Implications for Excluding Evidence that Ignores It

D. Evans, here. 

The Role of the ‘Equally Efficient Competitor’ in the Assessment of Abuse of Dominance

M. Mandorff, J. Sahl, here. 

Google says Java APIs lost copyrightability like Aspirin lost trademark protection over time

Fosspatents.com, here. 

Data Commons: From Beavers to Smart Cars to Ivory Coast

Privacyassociation.org, here. 

Online college courses: Outsourcing education

TheEconomist.com, here. 

Rijksmuseum: Masterworks for One and All

Nytimes.com, here. 

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

Eff.org, here. 

When You Let Incumbents Veto Innovation, You Get Less Innovation

M. Masnick, here. 

Debunking the "Stifling Innovation" Myth: The Music Business's Successful Transition to Digital

S. Marks, here. 

U.S. appeals court judge says FCC ignored antitrust law

Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here. 

VP8 cross-license draft compatible with FOSS licensing

Softwarefreedom.org, here. 

Antitrust a Governo e Parlamento, mettere all’ordine del giorno la tutela dei contenuti editoriali

AGCM, qui.

Google: On display

The Economist, here. 

Missing the Forest for the Trolls

M. Lemley, D. Melamed, here.

Parliament Members Call For Removal Of Conditions In WIPO Treaty For Blind

Ip-watch.org, here. 

What an IP Address Can Reveal About You

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, here.

DOJ Issues Rare Unfavorable Business Review Letter Regarding Patent Licensing Pools

Jdsupra.com, here. 

The Steve Jobs Emails That Show How to Win a Hard-Nosed Negotiation (E-Books)

TheAtlantic.com, here.

Why Italy Needs a Proper Freedom of Information Law

OpenSocietyFoundations.org, here. 

Abus de Google : le Conseil du numérique planchera sur des propositions

Zdnet.fr, ici.

Obama Stops Championing Treaty That Gives the Blind Better Access to E-Books

Wired.com, here. 

Federal judge bars holder of standard-essential patents from enforcing ITC exclusion order

Fosspatents.com, here. 

Copyright and Technology: Déjà-Vu All Over Again

R. Picker, here. 

The Pirate Cinema : quand le piratage devient oeuvre d'art

Numerama.com, ici. 

SIIA Tells the FTC What Patent Trolls Are Doing to the Software Industry

Groklaw.net, here. 

Will Professor Nimmer’s Change of Heart on File Sharing Matter?

R. Sanders, here. 

Competition regulation spreads through Africa: The Mozambique Competition Law

Nortonrose.com, here. 

Is Letter to Larry Page the First Step Towards Legislating Google Glass?

Thesecuretimes.wordpress.com, here. 

The New American Privacy

R. Peltz-Steele, here. 

Aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market investigation

UK Competition Commission, Summary of provisional findings here; Notice of possible remedies, here. 

Hemphill and Wu Respond to Blog Symposium (Parallel Exclusion)

Lawprofessors.typepad.com, here. 

Las petroleras aumentan en un 31% los márgenes sobre las gasolinas desde enero

ElPais.com, here. 

Privatheit im Internet. Chancen wahrnehmen, Risiken einschätzen, Vertrauen gestalten

acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften,  here.

Assessing Methods for the Quantification of Antitrust Damages. An Application to the Pasta Cartel in Italy

G. Notaro, here. 

My Insight Into The Blind Reading Revolution: Ron McCallum at TEDxSydney

Here. 

Revising copyright law: libraries, archives, museums and educational institutions

Statement of L. Gasaway, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Committee on the Judiciary, here. 

Class Certification Denial in Premier League v. Youtube

Project-disco.org, here. 

DOJ's Response to Apple's Pretrial Memorandum of Law (E-Books)

Here. 

A new goldmine

Economist.com, here. 

BGH: EuGH-Vorlage zur urheberrechtlichen Zulässigkeit von "Framing"

Hier.

Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Innovation: Evidence from TRIPS

M. Kyle, Y. Qian, H. Xie, here. 

Apple’s E-Book Argument: Deals With Publishers Improved Competition

Allthingsd.com, here. 

Rapport Lescure : "L'offre numérique en bibliothèque n'est pas à la hauteur"

Localtis.info, ici. 

Google Escalates the Competition in Map Services

Nytimes.com, here. 

A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project

US Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, here. 

The Shakespeare review: what's the future of UK open data?

Guardian.co.uk, here. 

Google's (Motorola's) reply brief in the appeal of Judge Posner's Apple v. Motorola ruling

Fosspatents.com, here. 

Shakespeare Review of PSI in the UK

Here.

------
Page 66:
"Healthcare data is increasingly held across sectors – public NHS organisations as well as private individuals and providers. In that context, encouraging data to be shared to derive maximum value requires an intellectual property rights ownership model that aligns private interests (e.g. in privacy and commercial sensitivity) with social interest in generating collaborative uses of data."

P.33:

 "Data that is derived from the activity of citizens must be seen as being at least co-owned by them and returning value to them, though the investment of business in collecting and processing the data should also be respected. There are government initiatives such as Midata, a government led project that works with businesses to give consumers better access to the electronic personal data that companies hold about them. The project recognises that data about citizens belongs to them and that they should have a way of claiming and using their ownership. Midata is currently about empowering consumers – government itself should explicitly embrace the Midata initiative to empower citizens by returning key data it holds on citizens back to them."

Pierre Lescure propose de renforcer le domaine public

Numerama.com, ici. 

Implications of the European Commission’s proposal for a general data protection regulation for business

London Economics, here. 

Sanofi-Aventis sanctionnée pour dénigrement à l'encontre des génériques de Plavix

Autorité de la Concurrence, ici.

Avoiding the 'Robin Hood Syndrome' in Developing Antitrust Jurisdictions

A. Abbott, S. Sacher, here.

Viel Unterstützung für Bundestagsinitiative gegen Softwarepatente

Heise.de, hier. 

Exploring Data-Driven Innovation as a New Source of Growth

OECD Digital Economy Paper, here. 

Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto, says farmer violated seed patents

TheVerge.com, here. 

Recent Developments In Rail Transportation Services

OECD Issues Paper, here. 

Thoughts on the White House Executive Order on Open Data

Eaves.ca, here. 

Contribution aux politiques culturelles à l’ère numérique

P. Lescure, Tome 1, Tome 2. 

Telecom Italia ha abusato della sua posizione dominante nelle infrastrutture di rete

Provvedimento qui.

Scientific knowledge unchained: verso una policy dell’università italiana sull’Open Access

R. Caso, qui. 

Intellectual Property Rights Gone Wild

J. Stiglitz, here. 

A Battle For Open Public Data In South Africa

Ip-watch.org, here. 

Schlappe für BVerfG: RWP-Mandantin Lexxpress macht Vertrag mit Juris zunichte

Juve.de, hier.

New White House open data executive order: how does it compare to the British version?

Guardian.co.uk, here. 

Barriers to Competition on the Innovation Superhighway: How the Lack of Antitrust Scrutiny of Patent Pools Deters Competition

D. Balto, here. 

Review of Canadian University Fair Dealing Policies

L. Di Valentino, here

Guides to Open Data Licensing

Theodi.org, here. 

U.S. Court Issues First Analysis of Appropriate Royalty a Patentee Could Obtain after Promising to License its Patent on Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Terms (Microsoft v. Motorola)

M. Carrier, here.

Getting Requirements Right: Towards a nuanced approach on standardisation and IPRs

J. Friedrich, here.

"Openness" and the Pursuit of Knowledge

A. Updegrove, here.

Competition Law as a complement to Intellectual Property Law?

A. Fletcher, here. 

"The Goals of Antitrust" Symposium: Papers

Here. 

The Economics of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: The Efficiency of a Balanced Approach to the First Sale Doctrine

G. Rub, here. 

Public and Universal Service Obligations and Competition

M. Harker, A. Kreutzmann, C. Waddams, here. 

Science Europe on EU Data Protection Reform Proposal

Position Statement, here. 

Case Study: Metrics for Measuring the Impact of Cultural Datasets

Europeana.eu, here. 

Craigslist Takes Upstart Competitors to Court

Reason.com, here.

The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances

S. von Lewinski, here. 

Google Wins Vertical Search Antitrust Case In Germany

Searchengineland.com, here. 

Online-Vertrieb von Sportartikeln

Kartellblog.de, hier. 

Libor-Scandal Antitrust Plaintiffs Allowed to Seek Leave to Amend Their Allegations

Dandodiary.com, here. 

FTC Warns Data Broker Operations of Possible Privacy Violations

Ftc.gov, here. 

The Competition and IP Interface: setting the scene

C. Maxwell, here. 

Google's Schmidt: The Internet needs a delete button

News.cnet.com, here. 

Händlerbefragung im Verfahren gegen die adidas AG

Bundeskartellamt, hier.

Datenklauseln von Apple rechtswidrig

Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, hier. 

Open Data to fight Poverty

Openaid.de, here. 

Has Big Data Made Anonymity Impossible?

Technologyreview.com, here. 

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) calls WIPO treaty for blind "dangerous precedent for other areas of IP Law"

Keionline.org, here. 

Governing the Anti-commons: The Institutional Logic of Standard Setting Organizations

T. Simcoe, here. 

The Data Revolution and Economic Analysis

L. Einav, J. Levin, here. 

Pay-to-Delay Settlements: The Circuit-Splitting Headache Plaguing Big Pharma

S. Han, here. 

Preliminary EU assessment finds Google's Motorola guilty of abuse of standard-essential patents

Fosspatents.com, here. 

EU Commission sends Statement of Objections to Motorola Mobility on potential misuse of mobile phone standard-essential patents

Press Release, here.

----------
Apple's "willingness" specified:
"Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court". Further, from the Memo:
"By contrast, a potential licensee which remains passive and unresponsive to a request to enter into licensing negotiations or is found to employ clear delaying tactics cannot be generally considered as willing."
Moreover, specifically to the relevance of the so-called German "Orange Book" case-law on injunctions:
"The 2009 "Orange Book" ruling of the German Supreme Court established that a potential licensee can raise a competition law defence against an application for an injunction by showing that (i) it has made an unconditional offer to license under terms that cannot be rejected by the patent-holder without abusing its dominant position, and (ii) it actually acted as if had entered into a valid patent licence. The Supreme Court's ruling did not specifically relate to SEPs. The Commission's preliminary view is that an interpretation of that ruling whereby a willing licensee is essentially not entitled to challenge the validity and essentiality of the SEPs in question is potentially anti-competitive."

Commissions interbancaires de Mastercard et Visa: test de marché

Autorité de la concurrence, ici. 

Petition Fights Proposal For Digital Rights Management In Internet Core

Ip-watch.org, here. 

Copyright in the Digital Era: Building Evidence for Policy

US National Research Council of the National Academies, here. 

ReLIRE : Recours pour Excès de Pouvoir, Filippetti et Ayrault à la barre

ActuaLitte.com, ici. 

Educational Fair Use: Amici Curiae in Support of Georgia State University

Academic Authors and Legal Scholars, here. 

DOJ Issues Business Review Letter on a Proposed Innovative IP Exchange

Weil.com, here. 

The Derivative Right: Or Why Copyright Law Protects Foxes Better than Hedgehogs

D. Gervais, here. 

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you

IPO.gov.uk, here. 

UK allows use of orphan works for commercial purposes

Futureofcopyright.com, here. 

Analysis of UK/EU Law on Data Mining in Higher Education Institutions

A. Guadamuz, D. Cabell, here. 

Could the Web have been patented?

Npr.org, here. 

EU debates biopiracy law to protect indigenous people

Guardian.co.uk, here. 

Craigslist's Allegations Of "Copyright" Violations Thrown Out

Forbes.com, here. 

Facebook says battle for teen attention 'not a zero-sum game'

TheVerge.com, here. 

Bargaining over Loyalty

D. Crane, here. 

2013 Who Has Your Back: Which Companies Help Protect Your Data from the Government?

EFF.org, here.