Planet FFII

Andre Rebentisch: ESOP studies on Linux laptop market barries public

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:51:33 +0000

The association ESOP from Portugal made available two papers of original research. They concern what they call an “artificial exclusion of Linux-based laptops”. I had the opportunity to see the study earlier. Both studies can be freely accessed from ESOP. It is not easy to calculate economic effects but ESOP applies their own innovative approach for calculating losses.

The first study analyses the national economic impacts of introducing a series of locally-assembled laptops with an Open Source system and applications. This study measures the effects on GDP, employment, trade balance and discretionary income. The idea had a previous successful try-out in a government project called e.iniciativas, where the debuting Linux laptop achieved a 10% market share. Later on, despite several attempts, Portuguese retailers were altogether unwilling to supply identical laptop solutions, when the e.iniciativas experience had clearly established that such products would be in demand.

The second study analyses this market behaviour, which is typical of retail oligopolies. The analysis derives a probability model for retail markets and addresses several malfunctioning phenomena in the frame of the existing European legislation for competition. This model can be applied to other markets where the imbalance between production and distribution control is felt and where distribution is highly concentrated.

They find the current market organization unpleasant:

The theoretical basis allows for the identification of two critical issues:

1) a small number of intervening parties holds the power to choose which products become available for millions of citizens

2) different degrees of decision-coupling between parties may show within an oligopoly

This matter has been neglected by our national Competition Authority and apparently not corrected by European institutions.

ESOP.pt may trigger an entertaining debate with their papers.

Andre Rebentisch: Danish Presidency on the scrounge – Future Internet Assembly

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:02:47 +0000

Die Danish EU Presidency is on the scrouge. For the EU Future Internet Assembly they raise fees from lobbyists. Makes me wonder if they fear EU presidency conferences become the new food stamps. I find it unpleasant that even a low walled garden would exclude parts of the Dutch population e.g. students from participation.

Future Internet Assembly May 7 – 11, 2012 – Aalborg Congress & Culture Center – Aalborg-Denmark Welcome to the online registration of the Future Internet Assembly.

Registration fee Future Internet Assembly (FIA) (May 10 – 11, 2012): DKK 1.500 / EUR 200 if you register latest April 23, 2012. After April 23, 2012 the registration fee is DKK 1875 / EUR 250
Future Internet Week: DKK 375 / EUR 50

The registration fee for Future Internet Week includes:
- Free access to Future Internet Week and all sessions on May 7 – 9, 2012
- Lunches & coffee breaks during the days of the program

The invitation was sent from a Commission address:

The Future Internet Assembly (FIA) of 2012 will be held in Aalborg on May 10-11, under the Presidency of Denmark in the EU Council. The theme for FIA-Aalborg will be “Smart Cities and Internet of Things”, and the programme promises many interesting discussions on how the Future Internet can be used to make our cities smarter and become a basis for more innovation, how the architecture of the Internet of Things relates to the Future Internet and examples of successful business models for IoT applications. There are also other interesting workshops on the impact of HTML5, interoperability of clouds, gaming and future networks.

And they even offer “early bird” discounts. How does it suit the dignity of a public office? I don’t know but at the Commission most staffers do not see any difference.

Andre Rebentisch: Nach Beagle Befall Wlan wiederherstellen

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:37:09 +0000

Wenn man der Entfernung von Würmern und nach dem Entfernen von Proxyeinträgen das Wifi zickt, und Garbage injiziert.

Programme – Zubehör – Eingabeaufforderung (als Admin ausführen)

netsh winssock reset catalog
netsh int ipv4 reset
netsh int ipv6 reset

Andre Rebentisch: IFPI – The Effect of French Hadopi on Music Sales

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:00:36 +0000

A study from IFPI The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France” (SSRN record). Four major record labels (Universal, Warner, EMI and Sony Music) supplied music sales data. Scientists from American Universities analysed the French data. It is insightful that the effect is mostly psychological. The mere enactment of the Hadopi law is perceived as a signal to consumers. The study “does not quantify the entire effect of HADOPI on producer surplus in the media industries, but merely indicates that for one industry (music) in one channel (iTunes), the law has had a large and statistically significant effect.”

Jonas Bosson: Cost of software patents shown

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:55:17 +0000

Nice to see media addressing the cost of software patents. At CNET, Last Jim Kersteller writes "What is that patent lawsuit going to cost you". Basically you'd have to pay lawsuits costs that are very high and pushes you to settle for anything under a million dollars. It certainly puts the small firm at huge risk. And to top that one off, Techdirt describes a study on why It's Mathematically Impossible To Avoid Infringing On Software Patents. Even for the larger players patents are as Brad Feld at Business Insider says "Games Where The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play". In fact this study, at techdirt, says that you earn more if you share for free. Oh wait, thats open standards and Internet.

On the other hand, if you can afford all the best lawyers you can go a long way in fighting off software patents (PJ/Groklaw) as Google has shown in the Oracle vs Google case. Its certainly in place to thank Google again for actually dealing with the patents rather than cementing the stupidity with counter claims.

To help innovation slightly, the US Supreme Court has continued to enforce barriers against abstract and long reaching patents. PJ at Groklaw does an excellent job on reporting about the Mayo vs Prometheus ruling. In Europe the patent establishment is still trying to avoid any such reform by creating specialized courts outside the reach of the Union and the European Court of Justice. But the EU - "Unified Patent"- project seems fragile and has growing opposition. Last from the current EU-presidency, Poland.

/jonas

Andre Rebentisch: Gender and climate change pave the road for Sokalism

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:35:23 +0000

When two issues are set high on the agenda it seems natural to examine an interlink. Women and climate change.

whereas climate change will amplify inequalities and there is a risk that climate change policies will also have a negative impact on gender balance…

Calls on the Commission and the Council, in order to ensure that climate action does not increase gender inequalities but results in co-benefits to the situation of women, to mainstream and integrate gender in every step of climate policies, from conception to financing, implementation and evaluation;

The European Parlament rapporteur Nicole Kiil-Nielsen almost manages to make a case. Still I’d like to suggest a Sokalist analysis of past initiative reports from the European Parlament.

Andre Rebentisch: Wie wäre es mal mit Vernunft beim Urheberrecht?

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:47:37 +0000

Prof. Kuhlen zur aktuellen Urheberrechtsdebatte provoziert vom Kopf-gehört-Mir Theater. Das Fazit gleich zu Anfang:

Interessen der UrheberInnen an ihrem geistiges Eigentum werden in den Vordergrund gespielt, um nicht zuletzt gegen diejenigen Kampagnen zu führen, die dagegen aufbegehren, dass der Umgang mit Kunst, Bildung und Wissenschaft, Wissenschaft, insgesamt mit Kultur, in erster Linie unter kommerziellen Gesichtspunkten gesehen wird.

Die Frage der Vergütung von Kulturschaffenden bleibt ganz ausgeklammert. Das ist verständlich, denn für Wissenschaftler im Staatssold ist in der Tat das Urheberrecht eine Chimäre. Was ist aber mit denjenigen, die von ihrer Kunst nicht leben können? Eine Problematik, die seit dem 19. Jahrhundert noch nicht gelöst ist. Neu ist die mediale Bedingtheit von Rechten in der Diskussion:

Aber muss das alles mit dem „Kampfwort“ „geistiges Eigentum“ begründet werden? Geht es nicht einfach um Rechte, die nicht quasi naturrechtlich wie „geistiges Eigentum“ reklamiert werden können, sondern nicht zuletzt unter veränderten …Rahmenbedingungen (wie jetzt durch das Internet) immer wieder neu verhandelt und dann in positive Gesetz gegossen werden müssen?

Da frage ich doch gleich weiter: Wie soll man anders diskutieren, damit es sinnvoll geschehen kann? Ich habe das mal so verdeutlicht. dass man in einer bipolaren Sicht zwischen “Stärkung” und “Schwächung” einem Rennwagen einen hochgezüchteten Motor mit mehr Pferdestärken einbauen würde und gleichzeitig die Bremse ausbauen (weil es ja nur schneller gehen soll). An vereinfachenden Starrsinn zerbricht letzten Endes jede Regulierungsaufgabe. Auch der Mittelweg ist nicht immer der richtige, einen See können wir links oder rechts umfahren, der Kompromiss lässt uns im Wasser landen.

Die derzeitige Diskussion führt nicht zu vernünftiger Balance. Wie wäre es mal mit Vernunft zur Weiterentwicklung des Urheberrechts?

Andre Rebentisch: Oneiric DVD abspielen

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:19:36 +0000

Wenn das Abspielen von DVD nach dem Upgrade nach Oneiric mit VLC nicht mehr funktioniert (Meldung: MRT..) mit Rootrechten in der Datei

/etc/fstab

die Zeile mit scd0 auszukommentieren, und danach den Rechner neu zu starten. In meinem Fall

# /dev/scd0 /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto,exec,utf8 0 0

Andre Rebentisch: ACTA referral, here you are

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:32:19 +0000

So that’s the question from the Commission to the European Court of Justice:

“Is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) compatible with the European Treaties, in particular with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?”

Too short? You can’t ask another question under Art 218(11) TFEU. Interestingly the EU Commissioner didn’t publish the referral notice.

Andre Rebentisch: De Gucht: Please wait, Europarl!

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:48:16 +0000

EU Commissioner Karel De Gucht asks the European Parliament to delay the vote on ACTA until the European Court of Justice has delivered its opinion. The EU observer quotes him:

ECJ ruling “…an important input to European public and democratic debate,”

What he doesn’t consider is that the IPR lobby is willing to surrender ACTA but not the entire Article 207 TFEU process which is challenged by the ECJ ruling invoked by De Gucht. And finally, the upcoming IPRED+ is more interesting than the dossier which allegedly does not change anything.

Andre Rebentisch: Achtung Plagiat! bei Kunst hat Recht

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:06:39 +0000

“Kunst hat Recht” (nicht: Kunst hart Rechts) ist eine österreichische Kampagne um Künstlern mehr öffentliches Gehör in der Urheberrechtsdebatte zu verschaffen. Mit von der Partei ist auch die von mir sehr geschätzte Mercedes Echerer. Eine Recherche von Machl hat nun ergeben, dass die Positionen der Kampagne aus einem IFPI-Papier von 2010 plagiiert sind.

Andre Rebentisch: ODF 1.1 published as ISO/IEC standard

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:46:00 +0000

Rob Weir notifies:

The ISO/IEC amendment to ODF 1.1 has finally been published. This makes the ISO version technically equivalent to the OASIS ODF 1.1.

Andre Rebentisch: No hope that public opposition to the agreement would subside

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:24:06 +0000

Canadian professor Michael Geist comments on recent developments in Europe:

The European Parliament’s INTA Committee yesterday soundly rejected a proposal to refer the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to the European Court of Justice for review. ACTA critics viewed the proposal as a delay tactic designed with the hope that public opposition to the agreement would subside in the year or two it would take for a court review. The 21-5 vote against the motion means that the INTA committee will conclude its ACTA review later this spring with a full European Parliament vote expected in June or July. The lack of support for ACTA within the European Parliament is now out in the open with multiple parties indicating they will not support the agreement.

Not quite. It rather seems that the conservatives (EPP) are unwilling to accept ACTA as an Europarl elections topic. The substantial questions arises whether a fast burial is beneficial as long as the fundamental treaty questions underlying Article 207 remain unreviewed by the court, and DG Trade continues with more of the same in bilaterals. Certainly the delay tactics would be beneficial to grow and sustain a broader popular movement. I am told the liberals didn’t like a fast burial.

Andre Rebentisch: Document Freedom Day 2012

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:35:22 +0000

Today is Document Freedom Day. Nice. And the German Document Freedom Award goes to 1&1 for their broad jabber deployment:

In Karlsruhe FSFE and FFII handed over a certificate and the Document Freedom Award-cake to Jan Oetjen, CEO 1&1 Internet Portals, and Tino Anic with his team, who are responsible for this functionality. The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP, previously called Jabber) is an Open Standard communication protocol used for chatting. A variety of chat programs support this protocol, and it is also used in VoIP applications. Every e-mail users of 1&1, GMX and WEB.DE get such an XMPP account by default, which has the same name as the e-mail address.

Congratulations.

Andre Rebentisch: Jeff Klein, I hate you ;-)

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:45:34 +0000

Jeff Klein from Mozilla emails:

Hi there,

Zainab says it best: “The Mozilla Hackasaurus workshop was a once in a lifetime experience.”

From X-ray Goggles to Hack Jams, Mozilla is giving kids the tools to remix and shape the Web — moving them away from consuming what already exists and toward shaping and building a more awesome Web — and I’m thrilled to be a part of it!

Argh! And it goes on:

The online experience presented to most kids today is one that is delivered in a shiny, fixed package — but Mozilla is changing that. Just ask Zainab: “We were introduced to Hackasaurus, a tool that makes it easy to mash up and change any website with the use of X-ray Goggles. You can remix any website and change it up to become your own…it was new and exciting.”

Get me the Karl Fogel manual rant. I just can’t stand all these awesome phrases.

Andre Rebentisch: Hilfe, mein Notrufroboter spielt Schach mit mir

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:07:54 +0000

Die Roboterstimme des Hitechwunders für die Seniorenbetreuung ist der Brüller:

Und jetzt kommt’s, er kommt von der Jade Hochschule.

Andre Rebentisch: Gibt doch Schlimmeres auf der Welt als ACTA

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:43:43 +0000

Infojustice hat sich den Spaß gemacht ACTA und TPP zu vergleichen. Schön tabellarisch, gründlich. Natürlich, gegen TPP sieht ACTA harmlos aus. Weder ACTA noch TPP enthalten übrigens Bestimmungen für gezielte Schüsse.

Andre Rebentisch: INTA ist gegen EGH Verweis von ACTA

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:50:01 +0000

Der Handelsausschuss stimmte mit großer Mehrheit (21 zu 5) gegen den Verweis an den EGH und der Plan ist tatsächlich noch im Sommer über ACTA abzustimmen. Für Kommissar Karel de Gucht muss das ein Affront sein.

“We have to bring that discussion back to the rational part. …I would expect all member states to wait the outcome of the procedure before the Court of Justice before they take final decision on their national procedure. This would be only normal.”

Siehe auch die Pressemitteilung von LQDN.

Mir wurde gestern zugetragen, dass nur ein “lobotomiertes Hühnchen” für den Interim-Bericht des Parlaments und den EGH-Verweis zu ACTA sei. Ich bin so eines. Ich finde es auch wichtiger, dass der EGH die Rechtsfragen des Art 207 klärt als ACTA schnell parlamentarisch zu verwerfen.

Andre Rebentisch: ACTA Rechtsgutachten – Nun wird es richtig albern

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:36:20 +0000

Man erinnere sich an das Rechtsgutachten zu ACTA, das zuerst vom Ausschuss veröffentlicht wurde. Merkwürdig war, dass danach mein Antrag auf Dokumentzugang negativ beschieden wurde, mit aberwitzigen Argumente wie der “Störung des Ratifikationsprozesses”, die noch einmal im Zweitantrag bestätigt worden sind. Ich habe damals nicht auf das Dokument von meinem Blog aus verlinkt, weil der Status ungeklärt war. Irgendwie ist dieser Sachverhalt aber auch dem Parlament nicht verborgen geblieben.

Nun erhält auch mein niederländischer Kollege Ante Wessels einen Bescheid vom Vize-Präsidenten Rainer Wieland (CDU), der sich da wohl ein wenig in etwas verstiegen hat. Rainer Wieland behauptet die Veröffentlichung durch den Ausschuss sei illegal gewesen. Der brüskierte JURI-Vorsitzende Klaus-Heiner Lehne (CDU) war da anderer Meinung.

Ante Wessels hat einen exzellenten Bericht zu dem Schreiben von Wieland verfasst. Lesepflicht!

Ich finde es immer wieder spannend wie wackelige Argumente in einer Auseinandersetzung plötzlich mit allen Regeln der Kunst ausgebaut werden. Nun wird aus dem Hut gezogen, dass die Veröffentlichung den Ratifikationsprozess in Drittstaaten stören könnte. Drittstaaten sind Staaten ausserhalb der EU. Dafür gibt es aber überhaupt keine Rechtsgrundlage in der Dokumentzugangsvorschrift EC/1049/2001, es sei denn man möchte wieder auf eine Beeinträchtigung internationaler Beziehungen abheben.

Ich habe keine Ahnung, wieso die Debatte so surreal wird, aber vielleicht ist das ein Streitigkeit in der CDU Fraktion im Europaparlament, die hier ausgetragen wird, oder der eurobegeisterte Abgeordnete Wieland möchte einen Gang zum Gerichtshof erwirken. Oder der Frühling macht uns alle ganz albern.

As to your allegation that the coordinators of the Legal Affairs committee [Klaus Heiner Lehne] had decided to disclose the legal opinion I have to inform you that contrary to your allegations, no decision exists to fully disclose document SJ-661/11 which has been formally adopted by any competent political body of the European Parliament.

Andre Rebentisch: Piratenjagd

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:17:51 +0000

Jürgen Stark findet starke Worte für die Piraten-Partei:

Die “Piraten”-Partei symbolisiert lediglich das Comeback des ewigen Spießers im neuen Gewand. Sie stehen für fast nichts, in Sachen Urheberrecht für das Ende des Rock’n'Roll und der klassischen Popkultur. Sie wollen die Musikkonzerne vernichten und damit einen digitalen Steinzeitsozialismus einführen, sie wollen also Arbeitsplätze und das Geschäftmodell Musikwirtschaft zertrümmern – im Dienste der neuen IT-Herren, der modernen Zuhälter, die mit den geklauten Werken anderer Millionen scheffeln.

Genauso die WELT über die auch im Saarland erfolgreiche Partei:

Am Abend eines weiteren Triumphs der vergleichsweise jungen Partei stand Michael Hilberer im schwarzen Sweatshirt zwischen den anderen Spitzenkandidaten, die sich allesamt die Mühe gemacht haben, …auch in der Wahl ihrer Garderobe dem Souverän Wähler ihre Wertschätzung zu kommunizieren.

Bei Äußerlichkeiten bleibt es nicht, sondern es gibt noch reihenweise steile Thesen. Unverhofft wird der Verriss sprachlich kreativ:

Die aggressive Naivität der Piraten und ihre betonte Ferne zum Parteiensystem werden ebenso wie das laptoppige Zerzauseln auf Parteitagen und die Krawattenferne des Personals auf der linksidealistischen Seite verortet – dabei hat das Ressentiment der Piraten gegen das politische Establishment denselben Drall wie bei der amerikanischen Tea Party.

Ich kann mir das gut vorstellen, wie da einer in der Redaktion sich dachte, nun ist Schluß, nun schreibe ich mal einen schönen Verriss. Dumm nur, dass auch Polemik gelernt sein will, wenn man Stammtischniveau erreichen möchte.

Andre Rebentisch: Spinning ACTA “prolongation” strategies – noise in the cable

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:22:14 +0000

Just got this press release from my colleagues from Quadrature du Net:

ACTA: The EU Parliament Must Face Its Political Responsibility
Brussels, March 26th, 2012 – Today is the beginning of a decisive week for the future of the ACTA procedure in the EU Parliament. Tomorrow, Members of the EU Parliament (MEPs) may decide whether to vote on ACTA in the next few months as originally planned, or to follow the rapporteur David Martin in buying time and defusing the ongoing debate through technocratic manoeuvres. … Whereas the EU Commission has already announced that it will refer ACTA to the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) to assess its compatibility with EU Treaties and fundamental rights in order to buy time, the ACTA rapporteur in the EU Parliament, MEP David Martin (S&D, UK) is pushing the same strategy. He has proposed that the “International Trade” committee (INTA) draft an “interim report” [1] before recommending consent or rejection of ACTA, and that the EU Parliament make its own referral of ACTA to the ECJ (which has already been strongly opposed by his own political group). As La Quadrature explains in a memo [2] sent to MEPs, both initatives must be dismissed. Both the interim report and an ECJ referral are useless, and will only serve to delay the final vote, considering ACTA proponents think the agreement would be rejected, were the Parliament to vote on it in the coming months.

Of course a swift rejection would be more clear cut. What Quadrature overlooks is that while there is a referral to the Court the European Parliament cannot vote on it, Parliament cannot do anything. And when Parliament does not join the case via Article 219(11) TFEU how could it make the Court consider its own issues and prerogatives? I can’t see why a interim report would be harmful as it keeps the debate going and won’t have any effect on a prolongation of the process.

LQDN demonstrates that their voting expectations do not depend upon the ECJ rerferral but their procedural input is quite a bit confusing. I had some strange artefacts in my DSL connection and then found out the ethernet cable between the router and the splitter was broken. You could argue that LQDN add some fog of war and inserted confusion in the process. I just wonder if MEPs would switch to a different cable. If you dismiss the current proposed procedures of the rapporteur David Martin as “delay” tactics what’s the actual alternative for Parliament?

Andre Rebentisch: Radioaktive Produkte

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:56:20 +0000

Eigentlich finde ich den ARTE Blogger ein etwas bemühtes Nischenformat, aber hier mal nettes aus den Redaktionsstuben des Gemeinschaftssenders. Als Radioaktivität noch sehr beeindruckend war:

Heute wissen wir dank Fukushima, dass man sich mit diesen Maleranzügen aus dem Baumarkt gegen die Strahlen behilft. Und Henry I. Miller fragte letzes Jahr in der WELT, ob Strahlung gut für uns sein kann.

Andre Rebentisch: Sven Regener ganz fünsch zur Urheberrechtsdebatte

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:21:45 +0000

Der Musiker und Autor Sven Regener ganz fünsch zur Urheberrechtsdebatte in BR2 Zuendfunk, respektive zum Strukturwandel in der Musikindustrie. Regener beklagt, dass es keine “endemische Musik” der heutigen Jugend mehr gebe. Wo bleibt da der Rock’n Roll. Auch kaum noch Gesangsvereine wie zu Zeiten meines Opas oder Frühschoppen mit Dixieland-Kapelle. Übrig bleibe nur noch Volksmusik, das Trauma seiner Generation, die ganze Independent Szene mit Studentenpublikum sei weg, weil sich heutzutage die Piratenmentalität durchsetze. Da passt das mit dem Zu-end-funk eigentlich ganz gut.

Ergänzend: Ich bin einer der Dinosaurier, die mehr Musik kaufen als hören. Ich lerne heute vor allen Dingen Musik durch Youtube kennen.

Andre Rebentisch: SCOTUS on Mayo vs Prometheus

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:43:26 +0000

Here just the link to the SCOTUS ruling.

“The Court has recognized, however, that too broad an interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law. For all inventions at some level embody,use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, naturalphenomena, or abstract ideas.”

Andre Rebentisch: Bütikofer auf der Palme nach PNR Kampagne

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:20:12 +0000

Der Europaabgeordnete Bütikofer verliert die Nerven:

“Digitale Gesellschaft”=verleumderische Arschlöcher. Nennen mich “Wackelkandidat” bzgl. #PNR, haben mich nie gefragt + ignorieren Korrektur.

— Reinhard Bütikofer (@bueti) März 21, 2012

Wobei noch gar nicht erklärt ist, was PNR überhaupt ist. PNR = Passenger Name Records. Also der Austausch von Fluggastinformationen. Dazu gibt es ein Abkommen mit den USA zur Datenweitergabe, wobei die Frage, was wir als Gegenleistung erhalten, etwas im Dunklen liegt. Mit anderen Worten: Datenschützer gegen Politiker, die sich über den Teich ziehen lassen.

Ich finde es grundsätzlich gefährlich, wenn Positionen nur noch solche Flipkarten sind, für oder dagegen. Manchmal muss man hart für oder gegen etwas sein, meistens handelt jemand Verbesserungen aus, und das ist auch gut so. Differenzierte Positionen lassen sich nicht so klar kommunizieren, aber die Verflachung der Debatte schadet der Entscheidungskultur, wo man doch lieber einmal jene Kräfte hinter dem Abkommen zur Rede stellen sollte.

Andre Rebentisch: ACTA in the Civil Liberties Committee 26.3.12

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:56:37 +0000

Agenda for the Civil Liberties Committee, 26 March 2012, 15.00 — 15.45 Room: Paul-Henri Spaak (5B001)**

3. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA
LIBE/7/08659
*** 2011/0167(NLE) 12195/2011 — C7-0027/2012
Rapporteur for the opinion: Dimitrios Droutsas (S&D)

Andre Rebentisch: ETHICS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:26:26 +0000

The EUROPEAN GROUP ON ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES delivered a report for the European Commission.

ETHICS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Reference: Request from President Barroso
Rapporteurs: Julian Kinderlerer, Peter Dabrock, Hille Haker, Herman Nys;

Most parts of the report are completely off-topic. This is what the theologists have to say about interoperability:

2.2.5 Interoperability and Standards
Interoperability is the ability of computers or digital systems to exchange and use information with one another.96 If, for example, rival telephone networks used completely different protocols it would not necessarily be possible to connect to others on a different network. “Interoperability means working together – collaboration of systems, services and people. When people work together, they need to communicate and make agreements. They need to agree on the tasks they will perform and how they will exchange results. If their nationality is different, they also need to agree on the language in which they will communicate. Moreover, they need to overcome cultural and legal differences.”97 The European Commission recently announced the adoption of the European Interoperability Framework, which has been closely monitored by big ICT firms and public administrations to find out what kind of software licences they should have.98

96 Lack of interoperability of Microsoft software and servers, for instance, was at the centre of an antitrust case brought by former EU Commissioner Mario Monti in 2004 when he was head of the Commission’s competition department. Last June the European Commission launched an antitrust investigation into IBM’s mainframe business after two smaller companies complained that they could not use the company’s operating system without buying costly IBM hardware. .
97 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/2319/5938.html
98 — Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or royalty-free. Commission initiatives in the area stem from a 2009 White Paper ‘Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU — The Way Forward’. The European Parliament has also published a non-legislative report on the future of European standardisation.

I wonder what marks their students would get for delivering an off-topic paper?

Andre Rebentisch: De Gucht goes rogue again

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:16:26 +0000

ACTA made us aware that democracy is not particularly popular among the Commission folks. Most EU Commissioners are unknown by the European peoples. EU-Commissioner Karel De Gucht (Belgium, OpenVLD) so far became more famous for inappropriate anti-semite remarks than his Trade portfolio at the European Commission. But Karel de Gucht had a dossier in his portfolio which raised broadest public attention among the European younger generation: ACTA.

Concerned of the ACTA dossier many citizens contacted the press staffers of his colleague Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Commissioner Michel Barnier is right when he emphasized the need for better communications. Karel De Gucht had the opportunity to embrace the public attention to ACTA, and strengthen the institutional cohesion with the European public, help the transformation of the EU towards an “Europe of the citizens”. He didn’t exercise this opportunity, and it appears to me the reason is a fundamental disrespect to democratic principles, he doesn’t take the public seriously.

At a recent Council Trade press conference Karel De Gucht, when requested by a Polish journalist, talked down on the Polish Parliament.

In Parliaments a lot of things are said. That is also what the Parliament is made for. I stick to the procedure.

Apparently that appears acceptable by Brussels standards but it’s not for me. He continued to mock the public “turmoil, public manifestations” in member states as Poland.

We have to bring the discussion – let’s say – back to the rational part.

Grist to the mill of the eurosceptic movement how they then advocate a concept of EU-loyalty to what anonymous persons from the executive brach have agreed to in secretive meetings which allegedly overrule national legislators. Apparently the role of Parliament is supposed to be loyal ratification. Even more awkward, when you consider the actual illoyality of the Criminal Sanction part harmonisation to the European Parliament.

Recently Members of the European Parliament officially complained at Commission President José Manuel Barroso how they learned about the Commission’s intent to referr ACTA to the European Court of Justice only by the press, contrary to Commissioner Karel De Gucht’s obligations under Art 218(10) EU Treaty “The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure.”

When Karel de Gucht fails to show the appropriate respect towards Parliament, you have to consider that he was once an MEP (1995-1999) himself. What was acceptable then is not acceptable anymore. We cannot affort Parliaments be treated like talking shops. The democratic deficit of the Commission needs to be resolved.

In Germany it is said that fish always stinks from the head downwards. This is how his top staffers show their respect for Parliament, via twitter from Geneva:

At the WTO TRIPS Council meeting, the EU negotiators were informally trashing the EU Parliament’s “theoretical” role in the #ACTA approval.

— James Love (@jamie_love) Februar 29, 2012

Worst of it, they are right.

Andre Rebentisch: German ACTA negotiators in the hiding

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:35:31 +0000

Netzpolitik reports the German Federal officials, who negotiated the ACTA Agreement, are unwilling to show up and become subject to public scrutiny. The Federal Government answers to a FOI request:

Das Bekanntwerden der Informationen zu den Personen, die für die Bundesregierung bei den Verhandlungsrunden zu ACTA anwesend waren, kann die öffentliche Sicherheit, zu der auch die Rechtsgüter der betroffenen Mitarbeiter gehören, gefährden. vorliegend besteht im Falle der Bekanntgabe der Daten der Personen, die bei den Verhandlungsrunden anwesend waren, eine Gefahr für geschützte Rechtsgüter der Betroffenen.

Making availble information about the persons which were present on behalf of the Federal Government in ACTA negotiations, may endanger the public security which included legal rights of the affected officials. In this case the provision of data about the persons who werre present in the negotiation rounds may endangers legal goods of the affected persons.

Indeed, many of the observers of the negotiations may be diplomatic delegates. A heated public discussion often misunderstands the actual role of persons in a complicated process. Still, who is willing to take the actual political responsibility for the German position? Who signed it off?

The government answer also talked about the nasty videos and blog post. True, many Commission officials were mocked on the internet, scrutinized by Parliament, and became subject to debate. This corresponds to the extraordinary powers they take for the predominately public task of changing the legal situation, where democracy kicks in. It is inconvenient to expose yourself, and it is usually upon the elected politicians who overtake this task.

Andre Rebentisch: Lemmings of Democracy or rebalancing? – MEPs about to axe Council question time

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:15:40 +0000

At 29 March the European Parliament will vote on amending its Rules of Procedure (2011/2266(REG))

Amendment 1

1. Question Time with ~~the Council and~~ the Commission shall be held at each part-session at times decided by Parliament on a proposal from the Conference of Presidents.

Amendment 2
2. No Member may put more than one question ~~to the Council and~~ one question to the Commission at any given part-session.

In other words the MEPs are asked to lapse their right to pose question during “Question Time” to the Council. This is particularly worrying where the Commission refers to the Council, for instance the ACTA Criminal Chapter, where the Commission had no competence.

The opportunity for MEPs to ask questions to the Council otherwise is further restrained:

Amendment 5 Annex II (new)
- concern in particular, in the case of specific questions to the Council, the exercise of its functions in defining, coordinating and implementing EU policies, or concern its powers relating to appointment procedures or the operation of the institutions, agencies and bodies of the European Union or a revision of the Treaties,

Amendment 6 Annex II
2. A question shall be inadmissible if the agenda already provides for the subject to be discussed with the participation of the institution concerned, or if it relates to the exercise of the Council’s legislative and budgetary functions referred to in Article 16(1), first sentence, of the Treaty on European Union.

The explanatory memorandum says:

“Abolishing Council Question Time in its present form would reflect the shift in the institutional balance referred to by the Conference of Presidents. For the reasons set out above, however, it would be sensible to retain the option of putting questions to the Council – during a specific question hour – on matters relating to responsibilities other than those linked to the exercise of its legislative and budgetary functions.

Behind all this is of course the need of Parliament to free limited plenary time capacity. It would be wise for Parliament to limit the amount of dossiers it accepts from the Commission, instead. For smaller Parliament groups and unattached members the Question Time is a way to make impact. At times in crazy ways.

Here you could find what questions are posed during question time (rule 116). Notably, the procedure for written questions (priority/non-priority) under rule 117 would stay. I hope MEPs would make use of this procedure and, other bodies like COSAR/CoR/EESC etc. been given equal powers to grill the Council with their own questions

Andre Rebentisch: Positionspapier von CSUNET ist eine Offenbarung

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:38:18 +0000

Diese Woche stand ich wie so viele ein wenig unter dem Schock des Kony2012 Videos, perfider und wirkmächtiger Propaganda, die am Glauben in die gesellschaftliche Nützlichkeit elektronischer Meinungsbildung für das Projekt Aufklärung nagte wie schon zuvor die 911-Verschwörungstheoretiker. Begeistert bin ich zum Wochenausklang vom CSUNET In Freiheit und Fairness, 2. Positionspapier (2012) von 16. März. Denn es ist erfrischend anders. Vieles davon ist Jargon, aber es ist ein Jargon, der die Schutzbedürfnisse des Bürgers im Netz in einer Weise betont, die den Bürger in das Zentrum stellt.

Viel zu lange wurde die Debatte um Netzfreiheiten und Datenschutz in den Kontext anarchistischer Staatsparanoia gestellt, wozu sich das altbackene Debattenritual um Freiheit vs. Sicherheit gesellte, in der jeder konservative Sicherheitspolitiker mit seinem 40 Jahren alten Sermon reüssieren konnte. Sicherheitsbedürfnisse des Bürgers wurden in einer Weise ausgespielt, die aus Angst vor Terrorismus oder dem Schutz der Kinder etwas zynisch Kapital schlugen. Ich denke hier vor allen an die angedachten Netzsperren als vordergründig einleuchtendes Mittel zum Kampf gegen Kinderpornographie im Netz, die aus netzarchitektonischer Sicht bekanntlich fatal sind, und in Brüssel in zynischer Art und Weise lobbyistisch eingesteuert wurden, aus viel profaneren Interessenlagen heraus.

Man mag vieles im CSUNET Positionpapier kritisieren und belächeln wollen, aber ich erinnere mich gut wie schwer es netzpolitische Themen hatten, als ich mich zuerst damit beschäftigte. Die Netzkultur war stärker von der kalifornischen Spielart eines progressiven Libertarianism dominiert. Allgemeinpolitische Relevanz damals Fehlanzeige. Die westdeutsche neue Linke einschliesslich der Grünen hatte noch den Geist der Maschinenstürmer zwischen Ökofundamentalismus und Technikfolgenabschätzung, die der Computertechnik eine ablehnende Haltung entgegen brachten, in der Sozialdemokratie etablierte sich der gewerkschaftsnahe Abgeordnete Jörg Tauss als einsamer Advokat der Netzpolitik, der nach dem Verlust von Mandat und selbstverschuldeter Ruinierung seines Ruf mittlerweile zum Groupie der Piratenpartei mutiert ist, die CDU zeigte sich als Spielball der Telekommunikationsunternehmen und Konzerne, in der Spitzenpolitiker sich mit der Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf der Datenautobahn trollen liessen, oder was von amerikanischen Pickups und dem Neuen Markt schwadronierten. In jüngster Zeit ließen sich einige noch bereitwillig den Begriff “Bundestrojaner” als Narrenkappe aufsetzen.

Immerhin, die schwer falsifizierbare Medienklufthypothese und das Pädagogenlobbying für Medienkompetenz findet seine späten Echos im CSUNET Papier, damals noch paternalistischer aber allgemeinpolitisch als Sozialpolitik anschlussfähig. Den Datenschutz empfand ich als eine Art Verschwörung der Behörden zur Verhinderung von Dienstleistungsfreundlichkeit für den Bürger, als Schutz von Ressortinteressen. “Volkszählung 84 stoppen” hing ein Aufkleber mit Retrocharme an der Klotür in der Uni.

Die klassisch ordnungsliberalen Themen wie Standardoffenheit für unseren Zugang zu den Schnittstellen (bei gleichbleibender Nachtwächterignoranz der staatlichen Regulatoren) verblassen angesichts der Plattformindifferenz und der weitgehenden Durchsetzung offener Systeme am Markt, während Datenclouds und Soziale Netzwerke uns in die schöne neue Welt der Postprivatheit führen. Die Kritik an der Volkszählung wirkt für die Kinder von 84 wohl als lächerliche Seeligkeit, aber sie hat wertvolle Institutionen in unserem Lande geschaffen. Mit den jüngsten Vorschlägen der Kommissarin V. Reding zum Datenschutz wird nun Europa ein wenig “deutscher” werden, wenn es gelingt diese Interessen der Bürger gegen die wirtschaftliche Macht der Sozialen Medien Plattformen, Werbeunternehmen und ihren Suchmaschinen und die Datensammelwut unserer transatlantischen Nachbarn zu behaupten. Für den fragilen Erfolg dieses Versuchs werden bürgerliche Narrative benötigt, die das Sicherheitsbedürfnis der Bürger verteidigen und ein Selbstbewusstsein des Staates als Verteidiger unserer Datensouveränität einfordern.

Da wo das Papier in steile Diskurse zurückfällt, macht es das auf eine Art und Weise, die so plakativ ist, das man das Gefühl hat, die Autoren haben richtig viel Spaß gehabt: “Das Internet bietet weltweite Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten und prägt unser alltägliches Leben. Aber eben wegen dieser Realität ist das Internet zugleich Tatort, Vertriebskanal für illegale Inhalte und immer wieder selbst Angriffsziel.” – Das sind natürlich knallige Formulierungen, welche die Debatte anheizen. Danach dann süffisant: “Auch gewisse Formen des „Cyberwar“ oder „Cyberterrorismus“ werden diskutiert, wenngleich hier zum Teil belastbare empirische Erkenntnisse fehlen.” und weitere Abschwächung.

Ich freue mich auf die Polemik auf das Papier, dem die Autoren Brotkrümmel zuwerfen. Originell blitzt es hier und da:

“Die soziale Funktion der Gefällt-mir-Komplimente, der Demokratisierungsprozess durch besseren Informationszugang aller Bevölkerungsschichten und deren Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten oder die Wertschöpfung durch Wissensteilung bringen die Werte unserer Verfassung erst richtig zur Geltung.”

Das Gefällt-mir.

Andre Rebentisch: EUR-LEX about to get PRE-LEX functionality

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:27:10 +0000

Great news from Martine Reicherts from the EU Publications Office. EUR-LEX will get PRE-LEX functionality:

…I would like to inform you that we are working on a whole new version of EURLex, in which legislative procedures will be fully integrated. In other words, the information on the outcome or status of a proposal will be more explicit, and you will no longer need to check PreLex or other sources to get a precise view of the life-cycle of a document.

I personally thought it was a good idea to seperate law-in-force and law-in-the-making. But they say EUR-LEX also includes acts that are not in force.

you mention that you thought only adopted law is made available on EUR-Lex. This is not the case. EUR-Lex also encompasses numerous other types of documents, such as preparatory acts, opinions, EFTA documents, EU case-law and even national case-law.

I with there a simple kind Button for Dummies to identify if the specific EUR-LEX document shown is an act Law in force/Law in Preparatin/Retired Law. For ACTs I understand the process but for case law I rely on legal experts.

Andre Rebentisch: Klaus-Heiner Lehne on the transparency of the legal opinion

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:26 +0000

The chair man of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) Klaus-Heiner Lehne (CDU) defend their decision to publish the legal opinions documents. It’s a letter to the Trade committee INTA. Keep in mind that the JURI committee is usually the most qualified in judicial aspects and an kind of authorative source in Parliament. Lehne’s argument for transparency is straightforward and common sense. I could not agree more. Erik explained:

The letter references RoP 103 (see below) and the Turco case and concludes that “JURI was merely applying the general rule, which is that there is an obligation to disclose the opinions of the legal service relating to a legislative process”.

Rule 103 : Transparency of Parliament’s activities

1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

You may remember my popular blog post where I published the “confirmatory reply” from Mr. Wieland to my document access request to this Legal Opinion. When my initial request to the INTA document was denied, it had already been disclosed by the JURI committee. You could even find it on the internet. I filed a confirmatory application to the document. What suprised me is that in the rejection it got affirmed, see the letter of Wieland to me. I didn’t link to the documents disseminated on grounds of the JURI decision, some press persons did and considered it a “leak” (which it was not).

Andre Rebentisch: IPRED+ would be delivered by September

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:01:00 +0000

Kerstin Jorna (Commission DG Market) told at the GEMA-Panel at MIDEM 2012: „Lost Property – the Future of Collective Rights Management in the EU” (31 Jan):

“In September then – and then we hope to create legal security for new legal business models and legal offer on the Internet. Of course that is positive but we also have to make sure that these new models are not zapped by free riders, people who use what you create, where you put a lot of investment in, use it for their own purposes. Therefore in September we will also come out with a revised regulation and rules on enforcement of laws which is only another word, protection of legal business models. This text is for September.”

The 380 stakeholder contributions to the consultation on a revised Enforcement Directive (IPRED+) demonstrate the current range of views.

Andre Rebentisch: Financial transaction tax: EU Finance ministers discuss the way forward

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:03:54 +0000

Economists proposed in the past a Financial Transaction Tax. Ten years ago left wing activists campaigned for that. Now conservative politicians. Still people doubt if that’s a good idea to prevent excessive trading or would even distort the markets. The political debate may lead to other considerations.

Elsewhere I commented:

The point is not whether the proposal makes much sense, it is simply that there are no other proposals offered… Get us another stone and a bird to kill. You could also view the FTT as a service fee for financial security externalities of the market borne by the public sphere.

Andre Rebentisch: Microsoft: Data protection undermines IP enforcement

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:59:50 +0000

Microsoft (John Vassallo) wrote to the European Commission on the enforcement review:

Data protection and IP enforcement must be reconciled. Data protection rules presently prevent some internet evidence gathering and civil cases altogether in some Member States – even against corporate infringers. This runs directly counter to the TRIPs Agreement. Fundamental rights to protection of privacy, intellectual property and justice must all be respected.

Details in the section under the title “Data protection and IP enforcement must be reconciled.”. Specifically their concern is access to IP data.

These fundamental rights can and should be implemented in a complementary and consistent way throughout the EU both to protect privacy interests and to permit rights owners to protect their IP through both civil and criminal enforcement.

Rene Mages: Impractical Software patents

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:47:17 +0000

Yahoo sues facebook over software patent infringement [0]. Patent litigation becomes the most destructive force for web enterprises. Software patents were still uncommon 15 years ago.

Since 1999 we advocate about the risks of software patenting and fully agree with Christina Mulligan and Timothy B. Lee arguments [1] : “There’s no easily searchable database for software ideas — it’s not like cross-checking chemical formulas, which are easily indexable.” . Lee and Mulligan argue quite rightly that there’s no good way to create a convenient database for software patents. In other words trying to check for a patent infringement is all but impossible for developers.

Software patents are utterly impractical to promote innovation. Here are a few American articles that we recommend you to read to broaden your clear understanding of numerous and inextricable software patents issues. The multiplication of insane litiges is an additional proof that software patents are an inadequate tool. In reality the patent establishment is the main pushing force towards software patentability in Europe with the support of some major IT companies. Their main and sad aim is not to promote but to impede technology and distort markets.

In september 2011 James Bessen, Jennifer Ford and Michael J. Meurer [2] have published a 35 pages article : The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. With accuracy they confirm the pure insanity of software patents :”In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) — firms that license patents without producing goods — have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today’s NPEs? Or are they “patent trolls” who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives and a net loss of social welfare.”

Recently Timothy B. Lee [3] emphasizes the following calamitous aspect :”Patents are often described as “intellectual property” and patent law provides for harsh property-like remedies against patent infringers. But a property system that is so convoluted that ordinary firms can’t figure out who owns what isn’t a property system at all. Genuine property rights enhance economic efficiency by bringing predictability to the allocation of scarce resources and thereby promoting decentralized decision-making. Software patents retard economic efficiency by subjecting software firms to a constant and unavoidable threat of litigation for accidentally infringing the patent rights of others. Hayek would not have approved.”

Concerning the moral dimension of software patent reform Timothy B. Lee [4] adds : “But a property system that exposes anyone who enters a particular industry to unavoidable and potentially crippling legal liability should also offend our sense of justice”

In Ezra Klein blog you can read [5] :

“Software patents are impractical — unless we’ve got 2 million extra lawyers”
“Disputes over patent policy often revolve around moral principles. Take software patents. Many programmers think software ideas should flow freely, untrammeled by the threat of lawsuits. Others, like Nathan Myhrvold, argue that infringement is just plain wrong.”

Please join FFII [6] – the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V – to fight against the plague of Software patents. We have to put an end to this recent and unacceptable resurgence of the feudal practices.

Links

[0] Yahoo sues Facebook over patents; it’s war in Silicon Valley http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57395693-93/yahoo-sues-facebook-over-patents-its-war-in-silicon-valley/

[1] Scaling the Patent System
Christina Mulligan (Yale Law School, Information Society Project)
Timothy B. Lee (Cato Institute)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968

[2] The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls
James E. Bessen, Michael J. Meurer, and Jennifer Laurissa Ford
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272

[3] Why Friedrich Hayek would have hated software patents ( Timothy B. Lee )
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/why-hayek-would-have-hated-software-patents/

[4] The moral dimension of software patent reform
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/03/09/the-moral-dimension-of-software-patent-reform/

[5] Software patents are impractical – Washington Post (Ezra Klein blog)
http://tinyurl.com/software-patents-impractical

[6] Please support FFII to fight against Software patents
http://www.ffii.org

Andre Rebentisch: FOX International wants “evidence regime in favor of content provider and rights holder”

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:28:54 +0000

FOX International (Gabriella Dore) wrote to the European Commission:

The involvement of search engines and Internet Services Providers in the enforcement procedures should be considered necessary for the effectiveness of the protection of copyright. This would not necessarily imply legal liabilities for this kind of intermediaries, but it should at least provided a sort of duty of co-operation on these subjects. At the same time, Members States that would not introduce this kind of legal responsibility may be considered in breach of EU rules and sanctioned by EU institutions for this.

It feels a bit bad that a lawyer from a non-European company tells the European Commission how to trade laws on member states. This is not how it works.

Internet environment and audiovisual content copyright infringements usually bring a problematic approach in the evidence and proof of violation. Enforcement Directive should provide an evidence regime in favor of content provider and rights holder.

Andre Rebentisch: Gotcha. Commissioner De Gucht in three strikes denial

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:49:57 +0000

European Digital Rights (EDRI) sent a briefing document to the Parliament, and Mr. Kamall relayed an item raised by the organisation to the European Commission by written question. The answer of De Gucht is remarkable on multiple levels. But there is more to it. The footnote issue from the leaked documents was openly discussed by Commission staff during hearings, in fact Luc Devigne argued about it with Canadian Law Professor Michael Geist. The key caveat below is the word mandatory. Again the Commission and Council cover up the negotiations as a result of confidentiality. Here is another video from the stakeholder hearing where Margot from XS4all did a bunny test for the snake on 3strikes.

Parliamentary questions 7 March 2012 P-001085/2012
Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

The final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is the result of a negotiating process where various proposals made by all parties were discussed, some of which were rejected. The Commission confirms its previous statement that no party proposed rules such as mandatory ‘three strikes’ measures. It is also correct that one party, early in the negotiations, proposed to discuss the possibility to implement policies to address the unauthorised storage of protected materials. In its proposal, this party made reference to systems of self-regulation by Internet service providers which may include in their contractual conditions of use policies allowing for the termination of contract for users repeatedly infringing Intellectual Property (IP) rights.

This proposal was flatly rejected by the EU because it did not comply with the E-Commerce Directive(1). It was also opposed by most of the other negotiating parties. The fact that this proposal was never accepted and therefore never included in the agreement is an unambiguous signal that it is not the intention of the parties for the agreement to address the unauthorised storage of protected materials.

It was intentionally decided by the ACTA parties not to create a dispute settlement mechanism which could impose a particular interpretation of ACTA against the views of one of its Parties. The final text of ACTA only refers to the possibility for stakeholders to cooperate between themselves. This cooperation is strictly limited by the rules on fundamental principles. The EU will continue to implement such a provision in line with the existing legislation which foresees, for instance, the creation of dialogues between stakeholders, such as those between Internet actors under the framework of the Enforcement Directive(2).

(1) Directive 2000/31/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.
(2) Directive 2004/48/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004.

Parliamentary questions 3 February 2012 P-001085/2012
Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 117
Syed Kamall (ECR)

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

I have been contacted by a civil society organisation which tells me that according to the Commission’s summary of its ‘Civil Society Meeting’ on 25 March 2011, ‘many rumours have circulated on “three strikes” measures and other measures restricting the access to Internet. It is important to clarify that no such rules were ever proposed by any of the parties involved in the ACTA negotiations’(1).

The civil society organisation claims that this assertion from the Commission directly contradicts an alleged leak of the digital chapter of ACTA (originally published in March 2010 and reproduced in a European Parliament briefing document(2)), which contains a footnote which proposed disconnection of (presumably ‘alleged’) repeat infringers as ‘an example of such a policy’. The full text of the footnote was:

‘[a]n example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider’s systems or network of repeat infringers’.

1. Can the Commission either confirm or deny the existence of that footnote in the preparatory works of ACTA?

2. If it confirms the existence of that footnote, can the Commission point to subsequent preparatory work that confirms that disconnection of end users is not an example of the type or severity of punishment that should be imposed in the proposed private law enforcement foreseen by ACTA?

(1) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/february/tradoc_147497.pdf
(2) European Parliament briefing document: http://www.edri.org/files/acta_disconnection.pdf

Andre Rebentisch: ACTA als Einladung zur Seelenforschung zum Urheberrecht

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:05:05 +0000

Jeder hat eine Meinung zum Urheberrecht, auch die Verwerter, die sich nun massiv zu Wort melden und die Kostenloskultur anprangern. Folie der Debatte auf allen Seiten ist das ACTA-Abkommen, das von den schlecht recherchierten Fernsehberichten als Urheberrechtsabkommen dargestellt wurde. Sicher, auch das unsägliche Anonymous-Video hatte daran seinen Anteil.

Die Debatte hat aber nichts mit dem ACTA-Abkommen zu tun. Die Annahme aller Beobachter aus der Ferne ist, dass die Rechteverwerter und Lobbyisten der Content-Industrie hinter der Initiative der Handelsadministrationen stehen. Diese Annahme ist tendenziell unrichtig, oder – vorsichtiger formuliert – wenig fundiert.

Lassen wir dennoch eine Debatte zum Urheberrecht zu. Stefan Niggemeier macht es sich zu einfach, wenn er sie verwirft:

Verhoevens Text beginnt so:

…Das Netz ist wie ein Supermarkt. Hier entdeckt der Kunde ebenfalls tolle Musik und lädt sie herunter. Und auch er hat etwas vergessen. Er hat nicht bezahlt — doch niemand hält ihn auf.

Die Möglichkeit, dass der Kunde die tolle Musik im Netz entdeckt, heruntergeladen und bezahlt hat — sie kommt nicht vor.

Es ist eine schlechte Ausrede, die wir oft hören, dass es keine legalen Dienste zum Musikkauf im Netz gäbe. Das stimmt nämlich nicht. Richtig mag sein, dass die existierenden Dienste sich nicht auf die Nutzergewohnheiten einstellen. Ferner muss eine Polemik auch nicht den Fall des authorisierten Musikkaufs berücksichtigen, denn darum geht es Terhoeven ja nicht. Stefan Niggemeier lässt hier etwas flapsig eine Doppeldeutigkeit stehen. Denn wir wissen alle, dass der Musikkauf oft “nicht vorkommt” und die Rechteinhaber leer ausgehen.

Sprechen wir über Urheberrecht, Vergütung für Künstler, Nutzerfreundlichkeit, zeitgemäße Lizenzierung, nachhaltige Finanzierung von Kulturschaffenden, deren Werke online getauscht werden, Urheberrecht im digitalen Zeitalter, veränderte Gewohnheiten. Gerne auch moralisierend und polemisch.

Aber nehmen wir ACTA da heraus. ACTA ist ein gefährliches internationales Abkommen. Keiner von denen, die sich nah am Prozess gegen das Abkommen positioniert haben, zielt auf eine Schwächung der Rechtsinhaber. Das ist eine Projektion. Die angesprochenen Szenarien IPod-Durchsuchung an den Grenzen und 3-strike Rule werden keine Anwendung auf EU-Ebene finden. Grund für die teils überzogenen Befürchtungen gegen die 3-strikes Regel liegt auf einer ganz anderen Ebene, nämlich dass Dritte, die ISPs, zur Kommunikationsüberwachung verpflichtet werden. Eine solche Überwachung von Telekommunikation ist – vorbehaltlich einer gesetzlichen Grundlage – sogar strafbar in Deutschland.

Wenn wir neues EU-Recht zur Rechtsdurchsetzung haben wollen, dann ist der Weg dazu eine Richtline, nicht ein Vertrag mit Drittstaaten. Nehmen wir die Strafrechtssanktionen als Beispiel. Hier fehlt eine Richtlinie. Die Mitgliedstaaten haben eine EU Harmonisierung bislang blockiert, das Europäische Parlament hatte dazu eine positivere Haltung, die Kommission schließlich ihren Vorschlag zurückgezogen. Es gibt aber eine Rechtsgrundlage dafür in den EU-Verträgen mit gewissen vertraglichen Schranken.

Das Wundersame an ACTA ist, dass es Strafrechtssanktionen enthält, obwohl es die (noch) nicht auf EU Ebene gibt. Die EU-Kommission hatte keine Kompetenz zur Verhandlung von Strafrecht, weil es nicht Teil des “Acquis Communautaire” sind. Diese Bestimmungen wurden “von der Ratspräsidentschaft” für die Mitgliedstaaten verhandelt. Wie sich zeigen liess, nahm die EU-Kommission mit eigenen Vorschlägen dennoch Teil. Das EU-Parlament hatte nichts zu sagen. ACTA hebelt hier also die Rechte des Europäischen Parlamentes aus, beschränkt seine Prärogative. Man schaue sich einfach mal an, was die Vorschläge des Parlamentes waren, und vergleiche das mit ACTA. Die europavertragliche Beauftragung der Ratspräsidentschaft zur Verhandlung ist reichlich obskur. Leider haben die Abgeordenten des Europäischen Parlamentes sich immer wieder nur an die Kommission statt an den Rat gewandt mit Fragen dazu, und die Kommission hat Nebelkerzen geworfen. Überhaupt hat die Ratspräsidentschaft nichts erklärt zu den strafrechtlichen Sachverhalten, für die sie sich verantwortlich zeigte.

Die Grundlage für die Verhandlungen der Kommission, ihr Verhandlungsmandat, ist bis heute vertraulich. Für Abgeordnete und Öffentlichkeit lässt sich nicht nachvollziehen, ob der ausgehandelte ACTA-Text überhaupt damit konform geht. Was man erhalten kann ist Einblick in das Explanatory Memorandum, die Erwägungsgründe. Die hören sich nach einem ganz anderen Verhandlungsauftrag an.

etc.

Andre Rebentisch: Ebook publisher case shows distortion of communications

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:11:52 +0000

CNET article: EU to e-book publishers: We’ll settle–if you do as we say

“Speaking to reporters today, European Union Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said that his organization would settle with e-book publishers as long as they “remove all of our objections.” Reuters was first to report on the news.”

I think there is a misconception that U.S. observers often find when they report about European Competition cases. The publishers and the Competition Commissioner are by no means on the same level. Almunia is responsible for enforcing the European competition rules from the European Treaties. We expect market players to comply with our competition authorities and their statements of objections.

Maybe the whole process has to be staged in a different way and competition authorities granted new powers to make them gain more respect. The bullying against our competition authorities and distortion of communications is not acceptable. But it’s also a matter of staging on the EU side.

For instance, it is difficult to communicate the difference between “the EU”, “the Commission” and a specific Competition enforcement procedures. When Almunia starts an investigation that is certainly completely different from his colleague Vivianne Reding objecting against Facebook, or Neelie Kroes complaining about a search engine. Furthermore, a settlement is an opportunity of the plaintiff to avoid sanctions. It is also often overlooked that these cases are usually put forward by complaints of competitors.

DG Competition should rethink its communication which would include completely remodeling and relabeling of the administrative process. For instance, when it’s not communicated Almunia against Bamazonk, but Almunias ruling on the complaint of Yazoo against Bamazonk, transatlantic journalists would get a harder time to interpret is wrongly. There are other symbolic acts to communicate competition enforcement better for instance seizure of evidence. When the press reported about searches in the main offices and investigators carrying folders, that would grant the authority more respect by the affected business players. If such means are not available yet, it is time to introduce them.

Andre Rebentisch: Senator Wyden grills USTR Ron Kirk on ACTA transparency

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:42:15 +0000

On March 7, 2012, the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk testified before the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Wyden (D-OR) asked him about the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in particular the transparency issues.

(watch the audience) – “Rough Transcript” by A. Stamoulis

In particular it is interesting for me that Ron Kirk explains the practice to enable Treaty insights for cleared advisors while the ordinary Americans were locked out from viewing the documents. He also argued no one would want to negotiate a trade agreement when the documents are put out.

I watched the whole session, not only Wyden’s part you find in the video. What suprises me is the superficiality of discussions in the United States, the bias towards opening foreign markets as a job creation effort around Senators constituency issues like poultry, pork and shirts. The appraisals and the spirit of formally agreeing with each other and the offers to “work together” on issues.

It is interesting to compare that with a meeting in the European Parliament Trade committee (24 Feb 2010) where EU negotiator Luc Devigne explained the document lobby leak issue and defended a lack of public transparency:

It should be reminded that this is an[!] international negotiations and that the parties um around the table have said that they did not want that their negotiating positions which belong to them want[!] to be revealed. We cannot betray, if you want, these kinds of rules. .. But one thing that I want to make clear because, I think, it was Mrs Weird [?] saying that lobbyists have documents. Which – I don’t know where they would come from. But certainly not from the Commission. We do not share any document with any lobbyist. That is very clear.

In the hearing Ron Kirk openly confessed that they have leaked the joint documents to cleared non-governmental advisors. These were documents kept from the American public and the European public despite Treaty obligations of the European Commission under Article 15(1) TFEU to conduct their work “as openly as possible”. It is still unclear to me under which legal base from the Treaties the EU Commission entered confidential deliberations on the ACTA agreement. Certainly it is not acceptable that documents got leaked and the first text were later published by the notorious Wikileaks site, not public bodies. On both sides of the Atlantic the public should be able to see what legal provisions are being negotiated and I congratulate Mr. Wyden for his effort to acknowledge a change of the game. In his own words:

There is no question, that is the way it used to work. And I think. What the public is saying, we got to do better…

Andre Rebentisch: All agree with Karel de Gucht

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:30:18 +0000

ACTA is a project under the Global Europe Strategy which attracts quite some controversy. I don’t mind if I add to that controversy because the agreement is both flawed in content and process. EU-Commissioner Karel De Gucht told during the September 8 2010 plenary debate

“What we are aiming at is simply setting an international standard in IPR enforcement that is reasonable, balanced and effective, and thus goes beyond the current WTO rules on IPR: the TRIPS agreement. This is the ultimate objective, on which I am sure we all agree.”

His staffer Rupert Schlegelmilch recently argued during the European Parliament workshop (1st March 2010) ACTA does not aim to set a new standard.

European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (2006/2292(INI))

60. Stresses that European IPR policy towards developing countries should not go beyond TRIPs Agreement obligations, but that it should instead encourage the use of TRIPs flexibilities;

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations

6. Deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation;

As you can see we all agree.

Andre Rebentisch: LXDE Linux Mint 12

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:54:54 +0000

Sound great, the LXDE flavour of Linux Mint, the lightweight desktop environment.

Andre Rebentisch: What Commissioner de Gucht thinks about the SOPA campaign

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:31:47 +0000

Commissioner de Gucht appreciates social networks:

…in the end the vote [on SOPA] had not been held, following a hostile campaign by social networks and the loss of White House support.

and social media also spoiled De Gucht’s ACTA project:

…, the intense media campaign which was unleashed in Europe, instigated largely by the social networks, had since led a number of Union Heads of State or Government to decide to delay signature or ratification of the agreement by their national parliaments. He added that the campaign had also had a considerable influence on Members of the European Parliament and, following recent contacts with various political groups, he now felt it would be difficult to muster a majority in favour of ACTA within the EP.

Andre Rebentisch: ACTA drama discussed at the Commission

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:15:54 +0000

Erik stumbled upon this, the Commissioners deliberation about ACTA.

The PRESIDENT thanked Mr DE GUCHT, Ms REDING, Ms KROES and Mr BARNIER for their comments. As time was short because of the imminent arrival of H.E. Mr Demetris Christofias, President of the Republic of Cyprus, he decided the debate on ACTA would be continued at a future meeting of the Commission. Nevertheless, he noted that all Members agreed on the principle of referring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the agreement’s compatibility with the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There was also agreement on the mandate to be given to Mr DE GUCHT to explore with the other institutions the possibility of joint action with regard to the Court of Justice.

Do you see the trick? The Commissioner De Gucht attempts to lead the ECJ Court cases of the member states. I wouldn’t trust De Gucht and the Trade directorate a second given their past stewardship of the dossier. But you never know how Parliament and Council arrange themselves.

[the President Barroso] therefore felt that the Court of Justice of the European Union should be asked to confirm the Commission’s position in this matter, namely that ACTA was consistent and compatible with the Treaties and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. He suggested that that day’s discussion should consider that point, but also the question of when would be an appropriate time to refer the matter to the Court, and the possibility of consulting Parliament and the Council with a view to adopting a common approach in this matter.

The PRESIDENT felt in addition that the discussion should also look at the lessons to be learned from this experience and how the Commission could best anticipate and deal with such situations in the future. Although the Commission had provided the necessary technical assistance and information
throughout the negotiations and the conclusion of ACTA — thus ensuring that the process was completely transparent — it now found itself the focus of criticism for every possible negative aspect of the agreement.

He referred in this connection to the deafening silence from other interested parties — industry and creative artists in general — who would benefit from ACTA. He expressed regret that some groups and organisations were today completely absent from the public debate on an international agreement which was broadly to their advantage, when they had been able in the past to take part in campaigns to defend their interests vis-à-vis the Commission.

Finally, the PRESIDENT expressed the hope that the discussion would also touch upon the more general question of the Commission’s relations with the other institutions and the Member States, when the Commission was left with the task of defending single-handedly the final outcome of negotiations which they had all taken part in and supported.

Barnier wants to change the Commission’s communication policy:

Mr BARNIER was also of the opinion that the key role of social networks in public debate in Europe forced the Commission to think carefully about adapting some of its means of communication and that Members should discuss the matter as soon possible.

Andre Rebentisch: Cyber-security as the next task for our military?

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:22:13 +0000

It is interesting how Cyber-security enters the defense agenda:

11:30-13:00 Session II: Shifting ‘smart defence’ from slogan to reality
The notion of Smart Defence has caught on quickly, no doubt because it offers a welcome solution to the intractable problems of capability shortcomings and defence cutbacks on both sides of the Atlantic. But what in practical terms does smart defence constitute, and how should it be benchmarked? Should NATO planners be creating a matrix that gives an at-a-glance guide to each member states’ capabilities in areas ranging from heavy airlift to tactical troop transport, UAVs to helicopters and battlefield communications to cyber-security? Above all, will smart defence be the making of a new eve in transatlantic defence cooperation with NATO, or the breaking of it?

Nice pattern “be the making …or the breaking of it”. Strange that the pitch includes a breaking scenario.

Andre Rebentisch: Impact Assessment for ACTA

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:24:15 +0000

Let’s not forget item 14 of the European Parliament resolution of 18 Dec 2008, quote:

14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to negotiate ACTA under conditions of the utmost transparency towards EU citizens, especially with regard to the definitions of the terms “counterfeiting” and “piracy” and the criminal sanction measures foreseen; takes the view that the social impact of the agreement as well as the impact on civil liberties must be assessed; supports the establishment of a task force to examine the implementation of the agreement, by promoting this subject in dialogue between the European Union and third countries and as part of cooperation measures with those countries;

More than 3 years later the European Commission still has not complied with the Parliament resolution. For impact assessments the Commission provides a guideline COM(2010)573.

Andre Rebentisch: EU Mathworks Interoperability Case

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:47:23 +0000

Commissioner Almunia has been a bit quite on the interoperability front, this changes now:

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation to assess whether The MathWorks Inc., a U.S.-based software company, has distorted competition in the market for the design of commercial control systems by preventing competitors from achieving interoperability with its products. The Commission will investigate whether by allegedly refusing to provide a competitor with end-user licences and interoperability information, the company has breached EU antitrust rules that prohibit the abuse of a dominant position. The opening of proceedings means that the Commission will examine the case as a matter of priority. It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

The investigation follows a complaint alleging that MathWorks had refused to provide a competitor with end-user software licences and accompanying interoperability information for its flagship products “Simulink” and “MATLAB”, thereby preventing it from lawfully reverse-engineering in order to achieve interoperability with these two products.

Andre Rebentisch: Maßnahme statt Lyrik

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:06:01 +0000

Seltsame Metaphern im Bundestag, ein Abgeordneter der Opposition ist kritisch zur Rohstoffstrategie:

Oliver Krischer (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN):
Herr Minister, Ihre Ausführungen zur Plastiktüte und zur Staatspädagogik, aber auch zur Deutschen Rohstoffagentur haben gezeigt: Es ist ein lyrisches Programm. Es ist ein Programm ohne konkrete Maßnahmen. In der Tat: Es gibt ein Kapitel über Maßnahmen. Aber darin stehen keine Maßnahmen. Auch dort findet sich letztendlich wieder Lyrik.

Das Wort “Maßnahmen” kontakariert in der Tat auf jeder Zunge Schöngeistiges. Dabei ist Dichtkunst für Rohstoffe in anderen Kulturkreisen nichts ungewöhnliches. Li Zhaoxing, ehemals Aussenminister Chinas, zum Beispiel veröffentliche ein Gedicht “Fröhliches Fest für das Tangshan-Ölfeld”.

Und die Suche nach dem “rechten Maß” ist in der klassischen deutschen Literatur viel diskutiert. Fragt sich, woher es kommt, dass wir, wenn wir Maß nehmen, danach zur Tat schreiten. Da hat sich wohl etwas in die deutsche Behördensprache geschneidert.

Rene Mages: Activisme FFII

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:24:47 +0000

FOUNDATION for a FREE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Des liens essentiels pour comprendre les enjeux / Essential FFII links to understand what is at stake

Blog ACTA de la FFII

http://planet.ffii.org

http://twitter.com/FFII

http://twitter.com/FFII_fr

http://twitter.com/ReneMages

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/lobbies

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/ffii

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/swpat

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/gpg-public-key

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/dailybrowsing

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/books

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/blogs

http://nosoftwarepatents.wikidot.com/miscellanies

La lettre de François ELIE

NoOOXML News: The preferred document exchange among European Institutions is OOXML

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:45:07 +0000

"The preferred document exchange among European Institutions is OOXML", this is the summary of an awful document produced by the "Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics" of the European Institutions. Basically the document says that European bureaucrats use Microsoft Office everywhere on their desktop, and this is not gonna change. Here is the document in full:

Ref. Ares(2011)808658 - 25/07/2011

Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics

Conclusions on document exchange
formats following the discussion on office
automation platforms

The mandate of the Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics (hereafter “CII”)
includes, on the one hand, the exchange of information about the IT policies of the
Institutions represented in it (hereafter “the Institutions”) and, on the other hand, the
identification and encouragement of potential areas of synergy.
In this context, during its meeting held in Brussels on 14 December 2010, the CII held a
discussion about the current situation of, and the future strategies for, the office
automation platforms used by the Institutions, based on a survey distributed ahead of the
meeting and filled in by all the Institutions as well as by 15 additional EU Agencies
(hereafter “the survey”).
In addition, in order to initiate and facilitate the discussion, the Commission delivered a
presentation of its project “Next Office Automation Platform” (NOAP).
The main findings of the survey were the following:

(1) At present, the EU institutions typically run Microsoft-based solutions on the
corporate desktop, as their office productivity suite, on the e-mail platform side,
and on the collaborative platform, although diversity is certainly higher in the
latter.

(2) All respondents indicated their expectation to remain on Microsoft-based
platforms in the office automation realms mentioned above for the foreseeable
future (i.e. for the 2 years to come).

(3) The revisable document formats used at present are mostly Office 2002/2003
formats (84% of replies). The expected prevailing document format for the future
is Office Open XML (68% of replies).

(4) The Internet browser offering is already diversified at present, with a strong OSS
presence (Firefox) alongside Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, and this
offering will become increasingly diversified in the years to come.

The discussion showed the following:
– A decision is due on what how revisable document exchange format should evolve in
the future. Indeed, Microsoft Office 2003 with Office 97 compatibility, the format
currently used for inter-institutional exchanges, as well as the most widely used
internally in the Institutions, is outdated.
– Standards have since been adopted by standardisation bodies in this area, as well as in
the area of non-revisable document formats.

– Irrespective of the migration intentions of each of the Institutions, there is now a high
expectation both internally and externally that document exchange formats should be
based on standards.
Following the discussion held during the meeting, the Institutions agreed that a common
approach to revisable and non-revisable document exchange formats was advisable.
This common approach can be summarised as follows.

1.
Exchanges with the external world.

1.1.
As a general rule, non-revisable document formats should be preferred. In
this area there are two standards, both of which are implemented by a large
variety of viewing tools, including Open Source Software (OSS). The PDF
(ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008) is a widely used official standard. However, for
archiving purposes, the second standard PDF/A (ISO 19005-X) offers some
advantages. It is recommended to use at least one of the two ISO standards
for non-revisable document formats.

1.2.
In cases where documents have to be exchanged using revisable document
formats, the principle to be applied by analogy is the same as when dealing
with multilingualism. Citizens and the Institutions’ partners (e.g. Member
States) should be put at the centre, and the Institutions should take all
appropriate measures to be able to provide them with documents in the
standard format of their choice.
The minimum requirement is to support XML-based revisable document
formats standardised by the International Organization for Standardization,
namely:
– Open Document Format for Office Applications, or ODF (ISO/IEC
26300:2006).
– Office Open XML, or OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500:2008).
In addition, the Institutions are encouraged to support, on a best effort basis,
other widely used document formats.
Whenever multiple formats are supported, equal quality may not be
guaranteed.

2.
Interinstitutional exchanges.
2.1.

As far as non-revisable document formats are concerned, there is no
reason to depart from the format recommended for exchanges with the
external world. Therefore it is recommended to use at least one of the two
ISO standards (ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008 or ISO 19005-X).

2.2.
As far as revisable document formats are concerned, XML-based
international standards are the preferred approach. Given the fact that:

2
– on the one hand, OOXML is much more widely used than ODF at the
moment, and this situation is not likely to evolve in the foreseeable
future; and
– on the other hand, all the Institutions plan to migrate to office automation
platforms which will produce XML files natively while providing 100%
native support for legacy formats such as Office 2003,
the preferred document exchange among the Institutions is OOXML.
2.3.

The guidelines given above should not become an impediment for achieving
even greater administrative efficiency through interinstitutional cooperation. In particular:
– where, for legal or other purposes, a non-revisable document must be
regarded as the official version, the Institutions should, where necessary,
exchange also its revisable version;
– where, for technical reasons, an Institution needs a revisable document in
its native format, the originating Institution should provide it in that
format, in addition to the official exchange format (if different);
– where, for legal or other reasons, a closed group of users is established,
specific arrangements can be made.

The Institutions agreed to take the appropriate measures so that, at the end of their
ongoing or future migration projects, they can implement this common approach in an
efficient and fully synchronised manner.

Jonas Bosson: Noble of Barnes and Noble to expose the Patent Bully

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:59:25 +0000

Groklaw.net has published a detailed complaint from B&N on Microsoft abuse of software patents and market dominance against Android and Linux device manufacturers. We all know that this is the case, but prior deals have been concealed by NDAs. The documents shows how Microsoft is trying to kill free software like GNU/Linux and Android.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, famous for the "one click shopping" patent agree that the market would do better without such patents. Mobile Computing News has an article where Mr.Bezos blame Microsoft of taking full advantage of the broken patent system.

Tim B. Lee at Forbes also notes that the iPhone also suffers from software patents and would do better without them. When Venture Beat asked what Vint Cerf would tell the developer of the Next Big Thing, the technology that could replace the Internet, Cerf said, "Shoot the patent lawyer.".

Yet patent-lawyers claim that we should be happy (ipbrief), when patents are allowed to cover software and business methods. Because patents equals innovation, right?

best,
jonas

Jonas Bosson: ACTA hearing report: Keeping patents above EU control?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:57:24 +0000

FFII was invited by the Swedish justice department to participate in a hearing on ACTA - the question was simply if Sweden should sign an intent to allow EU to sign the criminal measures. Along the ACTA-process we have mostly seen information as leaks from negotiators. Even now after most participants have signed the treaty, some questions are hard to answer even though the treaty is public. Perhaps its because it is so generalized - something that could create a wide set of interpretations. See: EU Council file 12196/11 ACTA EU-memberstates agreement

First of all, EU has decided to add Patents to ACTA, something that the US does not want due to the implications of possibly harder injunctions and damages, as it seems. Still, our Swedish negotiators and the EU-council seem confident that the agreement won't affect current injunctions and damages wrt patents.

Adding to the equation is the fact that the EU enforcement directive on criminal measures (IPRED-2), has come to a political halt. ACTA is used here as a shortcut, perhaps even with broader regulations, circulating the IPRED2 political process. It will probably even eradicate the need for IPRED2 - now that patents are in ACTA as an option that the EU council will most certainly adopt. Further adding to the EU equation is the setup of an new patent court for EU-wide patents. Such a court would need harmonization.

So whats the difference in interpretation between the US and EU on patents in ACTA?
Will ACTA make patent enforcement harder in EU? If so, how will it affect innovation and growth?

KEI-online on US Patent stance:
http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/ip-health_lists.keionline.org/2010-October/000440.html

"Additionally, sources said the U.S. likely wants patents excluded from this ACTA section because it could also contradict a separate U.S. law that limits injunctions and damages in the case of an unauthorized use of a patented surgical method during a medical procedure."
EU should perhaps be more concerned here if it wants to stay in control of a very broad set of problems related to patents in different fields? Surgical Methods are not allowed to be patented but such borders have been broken before by the European Patent Office (EPO) - that accept lots of patents that are not supposed to be allowed, at the cost of real innovation and growth.

As it seems, EPO and the new "unified" European Patent Court will be outside EU influence by means of ACTA and EPO. EPO certainly gets everything it wants.

On the meeting: Everyone but me seemed fine with the agreement. Some from the attorneys office asked for broader tools, including domain name seizure etc. Not much room for digital rights - as in freedoms.

/jonas
More from FFII on ACTA at http://acta.ffii.org/

Jonas Bosson: Killing EU innovation with a unitary "more patents!" court

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:24:49 +0000

Erik Josefsson, ex ffii,
with a telling T-shirt, photo by
Benjamin Henrion

Patent folks repeat that unitary patents have nothing to do with software patents, but why then:
"EPLAW strongly recommends the exclusion of rules of substantive patent law from Union law". One argument is that only patent courts would be qualified to decide the limits of patents. Patent "users" and professionals seriously believe they own the golden hammer for innovation. Just don't let anything get in their way. Who would not like exclusive rights?

I also got strong reactions from patent attorneys from Stallmans piece in the Guradian. They say that software patents are already established in the EU, why does he not understand that? That debate was over ten years ago! But thats not true. Its happening right here and now while software patents are ever more questioned and tried publicly. What happened ten years ago is coming into the public light - and it shames the patent institutions. Its also a trial of legitimacy. Where monopolist proponents try to establish software patents like MS: "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair." (see Glyn Moody on techdirt). A European court that protects the "users" of the patent-system would allow MS to litigate for licenses in one strike over all of EU.

A specialized patent outside EU law or national law would make it next to impossible to cure a sick system in need of outside input. It might also spell the end of free software and cost us quite a lot more, as Bessen and Meurer's book "Patent Failure" points out.

If you are in Stockholm, dont miss Stallman on 8/11 at the Stockholm University:
http://foss-sthlm.haxx.se/nov2011.html

And check out the petition to remove software patents at the white house.

- jonas

NoOOXML News: Embarrassing details from South America

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:56:55 +0000

A few days ago we were made aware of recent mass leaks of US embassy cables to the media but were reluctant to spread the story. You often get forwarded leaked documents in Brussels and it makes you feel bad for our administration. I wouldn't want to read diaries of my close friends. I don't like the vigilante narration of the Wikileaks service. We also didn't mention that the terrorist Brevik spread his "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" in docx format (Yes, we do remember the Oslo situation), and how - around 2003 - a certain company supported a journo-lobbying service that spread anti-muslim hate propaganda in Europe. Sometimes things are too embarassing, not worth to talk about. The cable about the Brazilian lobbying effort falls into the same category… Secrecy is useful as it shields the dignity of the office.

Brazilian Open XML debate veteran Homembit comprehends (es) the fraternisation:

A few days ago we were all surprised by a document leaked at CableGate, exchanged between the US embassy in Brazil and the American Government in 2007. According to this cable, Microsoft made serious accusations against the Brazilian government, and…, they indirectly asked for an intervention of the American Government to halt the spread of ODF in Brazil, to win the Brazilian support for the approval of OpenXML in ISO, to halt the partnership between the Brazilian technical committee and other committees discussing the international standard at that time, to reduce the influence of Brazil in the international debate on OpenXML, and also to accuse the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Brazilian Presidency’s Civil House of being anti-Americans.

Jan Wildeboer of Redhat comments:

We all knew that MSFT would fight hard against ODF. But calling it an un-american standard? Geez.

I don't know if the Brazilian government was pro-American or not. What felt offensive to me was the attempt to depict technical criticism of the format as a way to "discredit" it. Actually that is quite a distortion of the facts. The format was formally not ready for adoption and technical defects were brushed away by stuffing committees. The diplomats also had their difficulties to understand the difference between adoption of a data exchange format and procuring a software solution. Other foreign offices, among them Brazil and Germany, had better recommendations than a hapless co-existence idea.

US citizens and corporations would figure out why the US embassy was turned into a solutions provider abroad. The amount of cooperation between sales representatives and diplomacy is surprising and does not suit the dignity of their office. Disgusting.

Please read Homembit's article for a Brazilian SSO inside perspective.

Jonas Bosson: Chartered Institute for Patent Expansion strikes back

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:14:57 +0000

Richard Stallman wrote a piece in the Guardian on the risks of software patents under the proposed EU/unitary-patent. In a off-planet reply today, the Tim Roberts of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys tells us that our fears are unfounded:

"• Despite Stallman's comments to the contrary, UK and European statute law regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has not changed in substance for many years."

Mr Roberts must know that European Patent Office coined "computer-implemented inventions" outside statute law as to allow for software patents as seen from so many granted patents, while the European Patent Convention clearly states that software is not patentable. So the statement is nonsense. Things have changed quite tremendously - and thats just what this is about!

"• Stallman suggests that "appeals against the [European Patent Office's] decisions would be decided based on the EPO's own rules", and is concerned how the EPO would act "with external limits (such as national courts) removed". However, the EPO is bound by legislation agreed by its member states, has independent boards of appeal, and the current proposals involve creating a separate community patent court that will provide "external limits" in place of national courts."

So why is it so hard to understand the point here? A specialized patent court is not the best "external limits" unless you want those limits to go very far. The US Supreme court have had to hold the US version, CAFC, of the proposed EU-patents court back several times. The lesson should have been learned.

/jonas

Jonas Bosson: FFII-se reply to swedish justice department on unitary-patent-court.

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:12:42 +0000

Here is a quick translate of the Swedish text, http://www.ffii.se/jonas/svar-remiss-judep-20110830.pdf, sent to the justice department on the EU negotiations of a new patent court:

The Swedish Association for a Free Information Infrastructure,FFII, has interest in innovation and growth in software. We are therefore pleased to be consulted on a new patent court.

We are enthusiastic that the European patent system gets more efficient and integrated, but critical to the possibility of the patent court as final instance. For software, it is about the right balance between patent, copyright, access to and ability to manage information. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held back the U.S. Federal Patent Court in matters of what may be patented. We believe that a general appeals instance would make a more balanced assessment. Today, there are great risks for developers as abstract and theoretical methods are patented despite the boundaries of the European Patent Convention.

Economic research shows that many patents, especially in software, stifle innovation and
growth (1). A more balanced and independent assessment than the union's own patents are needed to clarify limits (2), reduce costs and provide the individual patents more value.

1 A Generation of Software Patents, Bessen, Boston University

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1868979

2. Yttrande i betänkandet ”Patent och innovationer för tillväxt och välfärd” SOU 2006:80
http://www.ffii.se/jonas/sou2006-80/FFII-yttrande.html

Jonas Bosson: Abstract matters, rules smart Judge.

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:46:38 +0000

There are so many nice cites comming from this recent Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) ruling that its best that you start reading the full text. Its inlined here on techdirt: "Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'"

The court rules that a patent, on logging IP numbers related to card payments, is abstract matters and not patentable. And that abstract ideas, something that can be done using pen and paper, can't qualify as patentable just because it can be stored as computer instructions.

This seems to have an aful lot of ties with the European patent office rulings wrt "record on a carrier" and "Pen and paper" in the IBM,1&2 and Hitachi cases, execpt that this judge understod things correct. Could this possibly resolve the current mess we have? I hope its a good start. This is just after the Supreme courts rejection of the Bilski patent.

I certainly hope that this a sharp turn for the sort of post modern rulings that have made information and math patententable. Abstract matters.

/jonas

Jonas Bosson: The European Patent Office bites its tail in order blur whats patentable - again

noreply@blogger.com (Jonas Bosson) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:37:07 +0000

This week, we finally learned that the questions The European Patent Office (EPO) sent two year ago to clarify what can be patented where inadmissible by its own patent high court, The Extended Board of Appeals (EBA). Its all the usual mess from EPO with slippery and indecisive wordings creating endless loops without clarifications.

EPO seems unable to repair itself...

EPO issues criticized software and business method patents even though its ruled by a convention excluding patents on calculations, information and software. The Appeals Courts of the EPO circumvented those rules by allowing something already known like a pen and paper to play that "non excluded" part. By separating whats "new" from whats "excluded" in patent claims they created a loophole rendering anything abstract patentable.

This has created an inflation in broad and abstract information and business patents flooding the European market, creating a legal mine field for anyone wanting to participate. Its a land grab for lawyers and patent trolls.

As EPO is clearly incapable making sense out of its own conventions and rulings, its high time for politicians to step in. These uncertainties cost an increasing risk to business in the European market.

To put an extra spin on this mess, the EPO PR interpret this non decision as a win for software patents. Hilarious and said, since this is just right - leaving questions unanswered and matters diffused is just what made this situation from the start.

Se also:
ComputerWorld UK
-
-
-

/Jonas Bosson