Patents

(1) |
1 (11) |
2 (403) |
4 (1) |
5 (2) |
9 (15) |
A (1523) |
B (1086) |
C (1821) |
D (972) |
E (1205) |
F (766) |
G (698) |
H (976) |
I (998) |
J (463) |
K (107) |
L (611) |
M (1138) |
N (590) |
O (243) |
P (1947) |
Q (51) |
R (1212) |
S (1136) |
T (740) |
U (239) |
V (365) |
W (565) |
x (3) |
Y (39) |
Z (14) |

Intellectual Property Law, a recipe for genocide

Intellectual Property Rights block technology transfer and TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) promote monopolies on seeds and medicines and piracy of Third World biodiversity and indigenous knowledge.

That is why we had to fight WR Grace and USDA to revoke the Neem Patent, we had to fight Ricetec to prevent them claiming our basmati as their invention. And we have successfully fought

The rules of The World Trade Organization were designed to impoverish poor people and poor countries, transform their biodiversity and water commons into corporate property so that seed multi-national corporations like Monsanto could sell us our seeds for $1 tr. per year and water giants like Suez and Bechtel could sell us our water for another trillion. And the free trade rules of agriculture are robbing Indian peasants of $1 trillion per year through falling prices because of $400 billion subsidies in rich countries distorting trade by distorting prices.

This is not just a recipe for poverty, it is a recipe for genocide. In the free trade world that Bhagwati upholds, peasants sell kidneys to pay debt for poisons, displaced rural women sell their bodies to feed their children, hospitals become centers of organ theft, and India which sold the finest fabrics and tastiest spices to the world becomes the dumping ground for the toxic wste of 9/11 and the exploded and unexploded shells from the war in Afganistan and Iraq.

Free trade is becoming a mechanism to take our wealth, our biodiversity, our minerals, our brains and give us trash and toxic in exchange. It is an exchange of "bads" for "goods". This is not comparative advantage, it is loot. Which is why we say, "Our World is not for sale".

— Vandana Shiva, ecofeminist activist
ZNet Commentary: An Attack On People's Movements

» email this quotes | liza's quotes | 1076 reads

Fair Use and Net Neutrality are the same thing

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

—

Lawrence Lessig

» 2 comments | email this quotes | liza's quotes | 1273 reads

Blaxploitation Redux, Part Deux : When niggas attack (the trademark office)

[via Wired News:]:

The actor Damon Wayans has been engaged in a 14-month fight to trademark the term "Nigga" for a clothing line and retail store, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's online database reveals.

Wayans wants to dress customers in 14 kinds of attire from tops to bottoms, and use the controversial mark on "clothing, books, music and general merchandise," as well as movies, TV and the internet, according to his applications.

But, so far, his applications have been unsuccessful. Trademark examiner Kelly Boulton rejected the registration dated Dec. 22, citing a law that prohibits marks that are "immoral or scandalous." A previous attempt by Wayans was turned down on identical grounds six months earlier.

"While debate exists about in-group uses of the term, 'nigga' is almost universally understood to be derogatory," Boulton wrote to Wayans' attorney, William H. Cox, according to the application.

Damon Wayans is one crazy mutherfocker and I honestly do not know if to take this as a publicity stunt or a real honest attempt at registering the trademark. But if it is a serious attempt at registering "NIGGER" as his intellectual property, then I'd have to be upset at his audacity.

» read more | email this story | 1456 reads

For Samuel Alito the rule of law trumps the US Constitution and that's a problem

Last night I had the special treat of discussing the Samuel Alito hearings with Normal Siegel at the New Democratic Majority monthly meeting.

Normal Siegel is a constitutional lawyer, former head of NYC ACLU and one of the true progressive liberals left in the political landscape here in New York City (and maybe the country). He ran (and lost) for Public Advocate of New York City in the last elections with the support of NDM, DFNYC and other grassroots organizations.

We spent almost 2 hours discussing these hearings and the implications of Samuel Alito becoming a justice of the supreme court.

The task of wading through the nominees 15 years of documents and records is absolutely daunting, but for the hard-core researchers, you can go to the National Archives :

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/

That's why I have to thank People for the American Way for the amazing work of collecting, collating and analyzing at their Save the Court website the nominees paper trail.

I have though been more focused on the public discourse around Alito; especially in light of what has been bothering me since the Robert's hearings. Both Robert and now Alito claim they will respect the rule of law and legal precendents first and foremost. I have been having problems articulating why I find these statements problematic until Siegel's presentation last night.

(1) Does this mean then that he would not review the rulings that have made the patenting of DNA legal and have turned the human genome into a commodity to be owned by multinational genomic corporations?

DNA Patent Database
http://dnapatents.georgetown.edu/

DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms
From the Council for Responsible Genetics
http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/crg.html

(2) Let's say a majority of "red" states are successful at passing laws that restrict abortion to the point of making it impossible for poor women and sexually-mature minors to exercise their reproductive autonomy. Does this mean that he would use that as base for a judicial review under stare decisis and, in effect, overturn Roe vs. Wade?

New law could mean death penalty for doctors
http://www.pphouston.org/site/News2?id=9640

Bill would ban abortion in Indiana
Lawmaker would want to appeal law to the Supreme Court.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/13565202.htm

More on this. I have to take the kids to another class. Which brings me to a tangent : How can citizens in this country be involved in the political process if these hearings are held during normal working and school hours? Our political and governmental system is designed for people not be engaged, not to have easy access to the decision process.

It's a challenge for new media pioneers like us bloggers (who were excoriated by a member of the Judicial Committee today but for whom I do not have a name). We need to figure out how to use this technology to augment the political process virally into people's work and school structures.

I have some ideas; but I really have to go now.

Blog you later.