Our Lands
Sunday, June 25, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/25/2006 03:25:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Net Neutrality and Freedom on the Internet and the World Wide Web
Via digg we link to a recent posting by Sir Tim Berners-Lee on Net Neutrality: This is serious.
We agree, and refer the reader particularly to a Slate article by Adam L. Penenberg titled Should Google have to pay for the bandwidth it consumes?
The US House of Representatives recently rejected legislating the concept of net neutrality and would leave the issue with the FCC, which may not be the optimal solution.
The US Senate Commerce Committee has also been grappling with this issue - made more difficult by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee, Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, by his own admission does not understand what net neutrality means. For starters, perhaps Senator Stevens and his colleagues should stick their noses into the Internet and the WWW to see what has been written about this issue by people who do understand it.
For those who do not understand what "net neutrality" means, let us quote a definition of "net neutrality" by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web:
"Net neutrality is this:
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That's all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.
Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free. "
On a more technical level of definition, Daniel J. Weitzner, Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in The Neutral Internet: An Information Architecture for Open Societies (also available as a PDF) describes four essential features of Internet Neutrality:
1. Non-discriminatory routing of packets
2. User control and choice over service levels
3. Ability to create and use new services and protocols without prior approval of network operators
4. Non-discriminatory peering of backbone networks.
What is the problem that has given rise to the recent discussion of net neutrality?
The problem is that some broadband providers have started tiered pricing practices based on Internet content, pricing policies directly in conflict with the principles for which the Internet and the WWW were founded, since it puts ISPs in the position of being able to engage in content price discrimination - with all of the evils which attach to such a power. One might compare this in principle to the telephone company charging you differently if someone sings Happy Birthday to you on the telephone rather than simply talking to you, or tripling the price (or even cutting off the call) if you start to voice political opinions which the telephone company does not agree with.
See Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution for a good discussion of the problem at Net Neutrality I and Net Neutrality II.
The Internet and the World Wide Web are largely the products of government, university and private innovation. Use of the Internet for commercial purposes was originally even explicitly prohibited. The whole idea of the Internet and the WWW was that equal access for equal price was to be made available to all, regardless of content. If the US Congress or the FCC permit tiered pricing based upon content, the Internet as we know it will quickly end.
Note: We have posted on this and related issues previously at:
The Internet and the WWW as Patent-Free viz. Royalty-Free Zones by Law
Net Neutrality and the WWW Revisited
Net Neutrality and the WWW
Net Neutrality and Freedom on the Internet and the World Wide Web
Via digg we link to a recent posting by Sir Tim Berners-Lee on Net Neutrality: This is serious.
We agree, and refer the reader particularly to a Slate article by Adam L. Penenberg titled Should Google have to pay for the bandwidth it consumes?
The US House of Representatives recently rejected legislating the concept of net neutrality and would leave the issue with the FCC, which may not be the optimal solution.
The US Senate Commerce Committee has also been grappling with this issue - made more difficult by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee, Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, by his own admission does not understand what net neutrality means. For starters, perhaps Senator Stevens and his colleagues should stick their noses into the Internet and the WWW to see what has been written about this issue by people who do understand it.
For those who do not understand what "net neutrality" means, let us quote a definition of "net neutrality" by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web:
"Net neutrality is this:
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That's all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.
Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free. "
On a more technical level of definition, Daniel J. Weitzner, Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in The Neutral Internet: An Information Architecture for Open Societies (also available as a PDF) describes four essential features of Internet Neutrality:
1. Non-discriminatory routing of packets
2. User control and choice over service levels
3. Ability to create and use new services and protocols without prior approval of network operators
4. Non-discriminatory peering of backbone networks.
What is the problem that has given rise to the recent discussion of net neutrality?
The problem is that some broadband providers have started tiered pricing practices based on Internet content, pricing policies directly in conflict with the principles for which the Internet and the WWW were founded, since it puts ISPs in the position of being able to engage in content price discrimination - with all of the evils which attach to such a power. One might compare this in principle to the telephone company charging you differently if someone sings Happy Birthday to you on the telephone rather than simply talking to you, or tripling the price (or even cutting off the call) if you start to voice political opinions which the telephone company does not agree with.
See Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution for a good discussion of the problem at Net Neutrality I and Net Neutrality II.
The Internet and the World Wide Web are largely the products of government, university and private innovation. Use of the Internet for commercial purposes was originally even explicitly prohibited. The whole idea of the Internet and the WWW was that equal access for equal price was to be made available to all, regardless of content. If the US Congress or the FCC permit tiered pricing based upon content, the Internet as we know it will quickly end.
Note: We have posted on this and related issues previously at:
The Internet and the WWW as Patent-Free viz. Royalty-Free Zones by Law
Net Neutrality and the WWW Revisited
Net Neutrality and the WWW
Permalink
Friday, June 23, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/23/2006 05:32:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
The European Union Services Directive Reviewed
As written in the EU Observer newsletter of 9 June 2006 (subscription available):
"On 29 May, the Competitiveness Council brokered a long-awaited agreement on one of the most controversial pieces of European legislation: the Services Directive. If the European Parliament confirms the compromise, this directive could revolutionise the EU internal market, says Sarah Lee, advisor for European Affairs at EUROCHAMBRES."
That EU Observer article by Sarah Lee is found under the title
[Comment] The services directive: What implications for companies?
where she writes inter alia:
"While the scope of the directive has been reduced - and some key sectors such as temporary work have been excluded - the text still covers most service sectors including hairdressing, hotels, construction, advertising, management consultancy and architect services.
If applied rigorously, the directive should considerably reduce the barriers within these services sectors, especially with respect to setting up a branch of a company in other member state."
Read more here.
The European Union Services Directive Reviewed
As written in the EU Observer newsletter of 9 June 2006 (subscription available):
"On 29 May, the Competitiveness Council brokered a long-awaited agreement on one of the most controversial pieces of European legislation: the Services Directive. If the European Parliament confirms the compromise, this directive could revolutionise the EU internal market, says Sarah Lee, advisor for European Affairs at EUROCHAMBRES."
That EU Observer article by Sarah Lee is found under the title
[Comment] The services directive: What implications for companies?
where she writes inter alia:
"While the scope of the directive has been reduced - and some key sectors such as temporary work have been excluded - the text still covers most service sectors including hairdressing, hotels, construction, advertising, management consultancy and architect services.
If applied rigorously, the directive should considerably reduce the barriers within these services sectors, especially with respect to setting up a branch of a company in other member state."
Read more here.
Thursday, June 22, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/22/2006 07:10:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Forecasting The Future: It's Solid as Rock
Success in the modern economic, social and political world world depends in substantial part upon human crystalballing abilities, but few industrial, social or religious leaders, management heads, or politicians are recruited or selected for having this rare gift of clairvoyance.
Quite the contrary, for top leadership positions and offices, society generally strives to select strong and steadfast individuals who can be quite immune to the trends of the times.
Indeed, in areas such as the legal system, the inertia of the establishment is so pronounced that the law inevitably lags far behind the actual societal vector.
If we look at our world objectively, we see that it is the more sensitive among humanity - and not the strongest - who are often the most attuned to the spirit of the age. We see this particularly in the fields of art, fashion, literature and music, where new trends generally anticipate the world of tomorrow far better than what professional prognosticators or political pundits write.
Today, while reading the June 15, 2006 print issue of Rolling Stone, we were struck by the headline "Rock Rules the Charts" in an article informing that the sales of rock music are on the rise in the USA, mirroring a trend in Europe seen through the win of the Eurovision song contest by Finland's hard rockers Lordi and their winning song "Hard Rock Hallelujah".
We sense that this points to an impending return of Western Civilization to its own basic values and culture - with all of the consequences that this return will have for the political, economic, military and social state of the world.
Forecasting The Future: It's Solid as Rock
Success in the modern economic, social and political world world depends in substantial part upon human crystalballing abilities, but few industrial, social or religious leaders, management heads, or politicians are recruited or selected for having this rare gift of clairvoyance.
Quite the contrary, for top leadership positions and offices, society generally strives to select strong and steadfast individuals who can be quite immune to the trends of the times.
Indeed, in areas such as the legal system, the inertia of the establishment is so pronounced that the law inevitably lags far behind the actual societal vector.
If we look at our world objectively, we see that it is the more sensitive among humanity - and not the strongest - who are often the most attuned to the spirit of the age. We see this particularly in the fields of art, fashion, literature and music, where new trends generally anticipate the world of tomorrow far better than what professional prognosticators or political pundits write.
Today, while reading the June 15, 2006 print issue of Rolling Stone, we were struck by the headline "Rock Rules the Charts" in an article informing that the sales of rock music are on the rise in the USA, mirroring a trend in Europe seen through the win of the Eurovision song contest by Finland's hard rockers Lordi and their winning song "Hard Rock Hallelujah".
We sense that this points to an impending return of Western Civilization to its own basic values and culture - with all of the consequences that this return will have for the political, economic, military and social state of the world.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/14/2006 12:46:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger Injured in Motorcycle Accident
Pennsylvania used to have a law requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets when riding a motorcycle, but foolishly repealed that law in 2003. The repeal of this law has surely had some serious and tragic consequences for many people, not only for the injured motorcycle riders themselves, who sustain avoidable head injuries, but also for their families, friends and communities.
Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who ordinarily and sanely wears a helmet when playing pro football, is the latest victim of this kind of most stupid lawmaking. As reported by Alan Robinson on June 13, 2006 in Roethlisberger could be discharged in 3 to 5 days, Roethlisberger suffered multiple facial fractures after being thrown from a motorcycle while not wearing a helmet.
Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger Injured in Motorcycle Accident
Pennsylvania used to have a law requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets when riding a motorcycle, but foolishly repealed that law in 2003. The repeal of this law has surely had some serious and tragic consequences for many people, not only for the injured motorcycle riders themselves, who sustain avoidable head injuries, but also for their families, friends and communities.
Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who ordinarily and sanely wears a helmet when playing pro football, is the latest victim of this kind of most stupid lawmaking. As reported by Alan Robinson on June 13, 2006 in Roethlisberger could be discharged in 3 to 5 days, Roethlisberger suffered multiple facial fractures after being thrown from a motorcycle while not wearing a helmet.
Monday, June 12, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/12/2006 01:42:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Universities of the World : Who is Better? America? Europe? Others?
EUobserver.com in a June 6, 2006 article by Andrew Rettman titled "US universities tower over 'dilapidated' EU schools" writes that:
"EU universities are among the worst-funded in the world, falling behind US schools and becoming vulnerable to competition from Asia, according to a new report by the London-based think-tank the Centre for European Reform (CER) out 5 June."
Universities of the World : Who is Better? America? Europe? Others?
EUobserver.com in a June 6, 2006 article by Andrew Rettman titled "US universities tower over 'dilapidated' EU schools" writes that:
"EU universities are among the worst-funded in the world, falling behind US schools and becoming vulnerable to competition from Asia, according to a new report by the London-based think-tank the Centre for European Reform (CER) out 5 June."
Andis Kaulins [6/12/2006 01:32:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
The Future : USA, Europe and the Rest of the World
Compare these two articles on the future of America, Europe and the Rest of the World:
Europe's Good Intentions Have Gone Sour
by Victor Davis Hanson June 1, 2006 (C) 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
How Long Will America Lead the World?
by Fareed Zakaria, June 12, 2006 issue of Newsweek
Via CaryGEE.
The Future : USA, Europe and the Rest of the World
Compare these two articles on the future of America, Europe and the Rest of the World:
Europe's Good Intentions Have Gone Sour
by Victor Davis Hanson June 1, 2006 (C) 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
How Long Will America Lead the World?
by Fareed Zakaria, June 12, 2006 issue of Newsweek
Via CaryGEE.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/06/2006 02:19:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
US Chief Justice Roberts Stumbles out of the Starting Blocks
Although we supported the recent nomination of John G. Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (see here and here), we are very disturbed by a quotation used in the concurring opinion written by Roberts in eBay v. MercExchange ___ U.S. ___, No. 05-130 (2006), slip opinion.
Roberts writes:
"Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. ___, ___ (2005) (slip op., at 6). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, 'a page of history is worth a volume of logic.' New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.)."
The first statement can be easily accepted as a legitimate judicial principle.
However, the words of Justice Holmes quoted by Roberts at the end are a cause for some concern, as this is not the first time that Roberts has used this quotation in writing an opinion. (See his dissent in United States v. Jackson, where, in fact, we agree with his dissent, commented by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy.)
Holmes has many great quotations, but this is not one of them.
For thousands of years, mankind thought that the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but this was not so. Logic - and not the millions of erred pages of history - were ultimately determinative.
Science is not law, but law is also a science.
Law can not afford to rest on historical practices if those practices no longer satisfy the modern needs of the social order. It surely can not be a principle of modern law that history overrides logic, where logic is in the right. Hence, the exercise of discretion does not always conform to the pages of history if the modern era demands a different solution.
It is of course true that the law is very conservative by nature and that historical precedents rule until overturned. However, as far as the issues of discretion and patent law are concerned, a page of history will not help to resolve the current chaos in patent law. That chaos is caused in part by the application of outdated and inapplicable historical principles to a new emerging digital world and in part caused by the legislative and judicial formulation of what have proven to be inadequate new legal principles for that world.
The legislature and the judiciary are thus called upon to remedy the current situation. Accordingly, we suggest to Chief Justice Roberts that the correct quotation from Holmes to employ in making decisions on the current chaos in patent law is the following one:
"I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving ... we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor."
Justice Roberts, it is time to "lift anchor".
US Chief Justice Roberts Stumbles out of the Starting Blocks
Although we supported the recent nomination of John G. Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (see here and here), we are very disturbed by a quotation used in the concurring opinion written by Roberts in eBay v. MercExchange ___ U.S. ___, No. 05-130 (2006), slip opinion.
Roberts writes:
"Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. ___, ___ (2005) (slip op., at 6). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, 'a page of history is worth a volume of logic.' New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.)."
The first statement can be easily accepted as a legitimate judicial principle.
However, the words of Justice Holmes quoted by Roberts at the end are a cause for some concern, as this is not the first time that Roberts has used this quotation in writing an opinion. (See his dissent in United States v. Jackson, where, in fact, we agree with his dissent, commented by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy.)
Holmes has many great quotations, but this is not one of them.
For thousands of years, mankind thought that the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but this was not so. Logic - and not the millions of erred pages of history - were ultimately determinative.
Science is not law, but law is also a science.
Law can not afford to rest on historical practices if those practices no longer satisfy the modern needs of the social order. It surely can not be a principle of modern law that history overrides logic, where logic is in the right. Hence, the exercise of discretion does not always conform to the pages of history if the modern era demands a different solution.
It is of course true that the law is very conservative by nature and that historical precedents rule until overturned. However, as far as the issues of discretion and patent law are concerned, a page of history will not help to resolve the current chaos in patent law. That chaos is caused in part by the application of outdated and inapplicable historical principles to a new emerging digital world and in part caused by the legislative and judicial formulation of what have proven to be inadequate new legal principles for that world.
The legislature and the judiciary are thus called upon to remedy the current situation. Accordingly, we suggest to Chief Justice Roberts that the correct quotation from Holmes to employ in making decisions on the current chaos in patent law is the following one:
"I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving ... we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor."
Justice Roberts, it is time to "lift anchor".
Andis Kaulins [6/06/2006 12:28:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Denial of Patent to Software-Related Invention Appealed in the UK
We posted previously about the Macrossan patent case in the UK, involving the denial of a patent for computer-based document assembly.
Today, we received the following information from a reader:
"The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Jacob of the Court of Appeal recently granted permission for an appeal in the Macrossan case, which concerns the controversial topic of the patentability of software related inventions.
In particular, the Macrossan case concerns the patentability of a computer-based document assembly system (at http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/). The appeal is from the decision of Mann J in the High Court given on 3rd April 2006, which may be seen at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/705.html.
A link to a copy of the decision/order by Lord Justice Jacob is at: http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/patentappeal.pdf.
It appears that His Lordship considered that Mr Macrossan's arguments have 'a real prospect of success' and that the issue of the exclusions contained in the European Patent Convention - Article 52 (i.e. the analogue of section 1 - subsections (1) and (2) - of the Patent Act 1977) was of 'public interest' and 'sufficiently uncertain' to be worthy of consideration by the Court of Appeal."
Denial of Patent to Software-Related Invention Appealed in the UK
We posted previously about the Macrossan patent case in the UK, involving the denial of a patent for computer-based document assembly.
Today, we received the following information from a reader:
"The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Jacob of the Court of Appeal recently granted permission for an appeal in the Macrossan case, which concerns the controversial topic of the patentability of software related inventions.
In particular, the Macrossan case concerns the patentability of a computer-based document assembly system (at http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/). The appeal is from the decision of Mann J in the High Court given on 3rd April 2006, which may be seen at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/705.html.
A link to a copy of the decision/order by Lord Justice Jacob is at: http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/patentappeal.pdf.
It appears that His Lordship considered that Mr Macrossan's arguments have 'a real prospect of success' and that the issue of the exclusions contained in the European Patent Convention - Article 52 (i.e. the analogue of section 1 - subsections (1) and (2) - of the Patent Act 1977) was of 'public interest' and 'sufficiently uncertain' to be worthy of consideration by the Court of Appeal."
Monday, June 05, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/05/2006 04:18:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Euro Sign (Euro Currency Symbol) Online : Problems and Solutions
Using the Euro sign online is problematical because this relatively new currency symbol was originally not foreseen in ASCII code.
Newer keyboards can reproduce the Euro sign on the screen monitor but when the same text is published online, the Euro sign (i.e. the currency symbol for EURO) can be garbled in the browser, depending upon the code setting.
For example, to render the Euro currency sign correctly online for the standard code setting on most English-language browsers, we use the HTML code
This conforms to the W3C HTML 4.0 standard which supports ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) characters, the standard code setting in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser as also the prevailing character encoding "Western (ISO 8859-1)" in the browser Mozilla FireFox.
If this specific character code is not inserted in Blogger's "Edit Html" textbox to replace the Euro sign which the keyboard produces, the Blogger textbox will correctly render the Euro sign on the screen monitor, but the Euro currency sign when published online will appear as garble for most standard browser settings.
Problems and Solutions involving Euro sign usage online are found at:
The euro sign in HTML and in some other contexts
Euro Sign (Euro Currency Symbol) Online : Problems and Solutions
Using the Euro sign online is problematical because this relatively new currency symbol was originally not foreseen in ASCII code.
Newer keyboards can reproduce the Euro sign on the screen monitor but when the same text is published online, the Euro sign (i.e. the currency symbol for EURO) can be garbled in the browser, depending upon the code setting.
For example, to render the Euro currency sign correctly online for the standard code setting on most English-language browsers, we use the HTML code
€ in writing our text in Blogger.This conforms to the W3C HTML 4.0 standard which supports ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) characters, the standard code setting in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser as also the prevailing character encoding "Western (ISO 8859-1)" in the browser Mozilla FireFox.
If this specific character code is not inserted in Blogger's "Edit Html" textbox to replace the Euro sign which the keyboard produces, the Blogger textbox will correctly render the Euro sign on the screen monitor, but the Euro currency sign when published online will appear as garble for most standard browser settings.
Problems and Solutions involving Euro sign usage online are found at:
The euro sign in HTML and in some other contexts
Andis Kaulins [6/05/2006 04:12:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
USA EU Air Passenger Data Agreement to be Minimally Amended by EU
The EU Air Passenger Data Agreement with USA Annulled by the European Court of Justice is to be resigned in only slightly amended form.
As reported on June 2, 2006 by Lucia Kubosova in EU Observer in EU ready to sign up for revised air data deal:
"EU interior ministers have backed Brussels' plan to stick to the content of an air data deal with the US authorities and only change its legal basis, following a court ruling this week."
USA EU Air Passenger Data Agreement to be Minimally Amended by EU
The EU Air Passenger Data Agreement with USA Annulled by the European Court of Justice is to be resigned in only slightly amended form.
As reported on June 2, 2006 by Lucia Kubosova in EU Observer in EU ready to sign up for revised air data deal:
"EU interior ministers have backed Brussels' plan to stick to the content of an air data deal with the US authorities and only change its legal basis, following a court ruling this week."
Sunday, June 04, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/04/2006 02:56:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
EU Citizen Alert : Sign the One Seat Petition
At the site "OneSeat.eu"
(the exact link is http://www.oneseat.eu/)
citizens of European Member States
can now sign an online petition
that the European Parliament be located "only in Brussels".
Currently, the EU Parliament also is required by the EU founding treaties to meet periodically in Strasbourg, France, which has been ripping off the EU for years by charging the EU Parliament exorbitant rents in Strasbourg city.
Additionally, it costs the EU a completely unnecessary ca. €200 million extra per year to maintain the Strasbourg seat, which has no other purpose other than to cater to French vanity and send still more EU monies to a France already pocketing the lion's share of agricultural subsidies and yet still rejecting the EU Constitution. Turncoats need not be rewarded.
The argument that the Strasbourg Parliament seat is a "symbol" of the normalization of French-German relations is a total myth. If that were true, this Parliament seat would be better placed at Ehrenbreitstein in Germany, and not in Strasbourg, which is a beautiful largely German-built city now populated mostly by Frenchmen. It is a Roman-founded city originally German, first forcibly occupied in modern times by the French troops of Louis XIV in the year 1681. What "symbolic value" such a stolen city is supposed to have to an "honest" European Union is a mystery to this observer.
As reported on 1 June 2006 by Mark Beunderman at EUObserver.com in Commissioner Wallstrom backs anti-Strasbourg seat campaign:
"EU communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom has supported calls for an end to the European Parliament's second seat in Strasbourg.
Ms Wallstrom, who is at the forefront of the European commission's efforts to reconnect to the European public, runs a weblog which she used last week to speak out against the parliament's Strasbourg seat.
"It ought to be the European Parliament who decides where they should meet! One can understand and respect the historical background for choosing Strasbourg as the location for the European Parliament - but today the practical problems - and costs! - connected with having two sites is overshadowing the symbolic value of it," she wrote."
If you are a European Union citizen who thinks that the EU is spending your money unwisely in a host of places, Strasbourg is the place to start drawing the line. Sign the petition that the EU Parliament only meet in Brussels and have the EU put these €200 million to better use than to line the pockets of rent-mongers.
EU Citizen Alert : Sign the One Seat Petition
At the site "OneSeat.eu"
(the exact link is http://www.oneseat.eu/)
citizens of European Member States
can now sign an online petition
that the European Parliament be located "only in Brussels".
Currently, the EU Parliament also is required by the EU founding treaties to meet periodically in Strasbourg, France, which has been ripping off the EU for years by charging the EU Parliament exorbitant rents in Strasbourg city.
Additionally, it costs the EU a completely unnecessary ca. €200 million extra per year to maintain the Strasbourg seat, which has no other purpose other than to cater to French vanity and send still more EU monies to a France already pocketing the lion's share of agricultural subsidies and yet still rejecting the EU Constitution. Turncoats need not be rewarded.
The argument that the Strasbourg Parliament seat is a "symbol" of the normalization of French-German relations is a total myth. If that were true, this Parliament seat would be better placed at Ehrenbreitstein in Germany, and not in Strasbourg, which is a beautiful largely German-built city now populated mostly by Frenchmen. It is a Roman-founded city originally German, first forcibly occupied in modern times by the French troops of Louis XIV in the year 1681. What "symbolic value" such a stolen city is supposed to have to an "honest" European Union is a mystery to this observer.
As reported on 1 June 2006 by Mark Beunderman at EUObserver.com in Commissioner Wallstrom backs anti-Strasbourg seat campaign:
"EU communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom has supported calls for an end to the European Parliament's second seat in Strasbourg.
Ms Wallstrom, who is at the forefront of the European commission's efforts to reconnect to the European public, runs a weblog which she used last week to speak out against the parliament's Strasbourg seat.
"It ought to be the European Parliament who decides where they should meet! One can understand and respect the historical background for choosing Strasbourg as the location for the European Parliament - but today the practical problems - and costs! - connected with having two sites is overshadowing the symbolic value of it," she wrote."
If you are a European Union citizen who thinks that the EU is spending your money unwisely in a host of places, Strasbourg is the place to start drawing the line. Sign the petition that the EU Parliament only meet in Brussels and have the EU put these €200 million to better use than to line the pockets of rent-mongers.
Friday, June 02, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/02/2006 09:30:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
The Ignominious Patent Law Legacy of Judge Giles S. Rich
We do not make many friends by always being the one to stand up and point out that the Emperor is without clothes, but such is the case in modern patent law and what we regard to be the ignominious role played by Judge Giles S. Rich in:
1) contributing to the ill-fated drafting of the 1952 US Patent Act;
2) writing "holdings in which the court struck down prior rules against the patenting of living things (Chakrabarty v. Diamond), software-implemented inventions (In re Diehr), and business methods (State Street v. Signature Financial), saying those rules did not have a proper basis in the patent statute (which he had co-written), and opening the way for inventors to receive patents in those areas of subject matter...."; and,
3) especially writing the unwise opinion in the 1998 State Street case [State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, reversing 927 F. Supp. 502 (D. Mass. 1995), cert. denied, 525 US 1093 (1999), U.S. Law Week (Jan. 11, 1999)], which disastrously overturned 90 years of patent law precedent and practice.
Indeed, when Judge Giles S. Rich wrote his now precedential opinion in the State Street case - overturning 90 years of US patent law precedent - he himself was 94 years old!
The 1952 US Patent Act and the State Street case represent major - and we think clearly unconstitutional - legal detours which have led to the confused and chaotic state of patent law in the United States today.
How can the United States entertain a legal system in which tenured judges are deciding the law of the land at age 94? Just imagine a major corporation being run by someone of that age - what are the odds that correct decisions would be made which would be in concert with the spirit of the age and the needs of the times? Very small, indeed.
We are aware that Judge Rich was a respected man in many quarters and that at the time of his passing he was not only the oldest federal judge, but also the oldest active judge in US history (you can not force a tenured judge to retire), having been appointed in 1956 to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. [Note: The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was merged with the U.S. Court of Claims in 1982 to form the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.]
Indeed, for all we know, Judge Rich may have been a likeable and talented person in his personal and social relationships. However, we view his legal legacy with considerable disdain.
We definitely agree with the 1999 opinion in the Linux Journal in Internet Patents: Giving Away the Store in assigning Judge Rich a less than noble position in the development of US patent law. LJEditors (Bryan Pfaffenberger) writes:
"[Y]ou're about to find out how we got into this mess. Let's start with patent attorney Giles S. Rich, who in 1952 chaired a congressional commission that rewrote the Patent Act.
The Patent Act's language, dating back to 1790, enumerated patentable subject matter in the following terms: "any new or useful art, machine, manufacture, or process of nature". In place of "art", the Giles-led commission recommended that Congress use the word "process" instead. This was no insignificant updating. The history of technology reveals that the term "art" nicely captures the Constitution's intent in that, in this context, it refers to the non-scientific skills and techniques that a successful practitioner uses. In contrast, "process" could include scientific processes, such as those employed in industry. It seems reasonable enough to extend patent protection to industrial processes, but you shouldn't be naïve about Giles' intentions. In the early 1950s, Giles embarked on a single-minded, decades-long campaign to greatly expand the scope of patent protection to "anything under the sun made by man", as the Giles-led commission put it. Subsequently, Giles fought for the legislation and jurisprudence that enable biotechnology firms to win patent protections for engineered life forms."
And that is where we are today. PATENT LAW CHAOS. Thanks in large part to Judge Rich.
The Ignominious Patent Law Legacy of Judge Giles S. Rich
We do not make many friends by always being the one to stand up and point out that the Emperor is without clothes, but such is the case in modern patent law and what we regard to be the ignominious role played by Judge Giles S. Rich in:
1) contributing to the ill-fated drafting of the 1952 US Patent Act;
2) writing "holdings in which the court struck down prior rules against the patenting of living things (Chakrabarty v. Diamond), software-implemented inventions (In re Diehr), and business methods (State Street v. Signature Financial), saying those rules did not have a proper basis in the patent statute (which he had co-written), and opening the way for inventors to receive patents in those areas of subject matter...."; and,
3) especially writing the unwise opinion in the 1998 State Street case [State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, reversing 927 F. Supp. 502 (D. Mass. 1995), cert. denied, 525 US 1093 (1999), U.S. Law Week (Jan. 11, 1999)], which disastrously overturned 90 years of patent law precedent and practice.
Indeed, when Judge Giles S. Rich wrote his now precedential opinion in the State Street case - overturning 90 years of US patent law precedent - he himself was 94 years old!
The 1952 US Patent Act and the State Street case represent major - and we think clearly unconstitutional - legal detours which have led to the confused and chaotic state of patent law in the United States today.
How can the United States entertain a legal system in which tenured judges are deciding the law of the land at age 94? Just imagine a major corporation being run by someone of that age - what are the odds that correct decisions would be made which would be in concert with the spirit of the age and the needs of the times? Very small, indeed.
We are aware that Judge Rich was a respected man in many quarters and that at the time of his passing he was not only the oldest federal judge, but also the oldest active judge in US history (you can not force a tenured judge to retire), having been appointed in 1956 to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. [Note: The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was merged with the U.S. Court of Claims in 1982 to form the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.]
Indeed, for all we know, Judge Rich may have been a likeable and talented person in his personal and social relationships. However, we view his legal legacy with considerable disdain.
We definitely agree with the 1999 opinion in the Linux Journal in Internet Patents: Giving Away the Store in assigning Judge Rich a less than noble position in the development of US patent law. LJEditors (Bryan Pfaffenberger) writes:
"[Y]ou're about to find out how we got into this mess. Let's start with patent attorney Giles S. Rich, who in 1952 chaired a congressional commission that rewrote the Patent Act.
The Patent Act's language, dating back to 1790, enumerated patentable subject matter in the following terms: "any new or useful art, machine, manufacture, or process of nature". In place of "art", the Giles-led commission recommended that Congress use the word "process" instead. This was no insignificant updating. The history of technology reveals that the term "art" nicely captures the Constitution's intent in that, in this context, it refers to the non-scientific skills and techniques that a successful practitioner uses. In contrast, "process" could include scientific processes, such as those employed in industry. It seems reasonable enough to extend patent protection to industrial processes, but you shouldn't be naïve about Giles' intentions. In the early 1950s, Giles embarked on a single-minded, decades-long campaign to greatly expand the scope of patent protection to "anything under the sun made by man", as the Giles-led commission put it. Subsequently, Giles fought for the legislation and jurisprudence that enable biotechnology firms to win patent protections for engineered life forms."
And that is where we are today. PATENT LAW CHAOS. Thanks in large part to Judge Rich.
A US Senate tribute to Judge Rich contains the following story:
"Judge Rich, at one time, told an attentive audience of a verse his mother would recite, 'The wise old owl lie in an oak. The more he saw, the less he spoke; the less he spoke the more he heard. Why can't we be more like that old bird?'"
Yes, yes ... it is always the other guy who should keep quiet. But had our Judge Rich followed his own philosophy and kept quiet rather than writing opinions of law which have proven to be absolutely disastrous in the long term, the patent world of today would be much better off than it is.
So here is our tribute to Judge Rich:
I lied (sic) like a wise old owl in an oak
The more I saw, the less I spoke
The less I spoke, the more I heard
Of a patent law gone fully absurd...
As Shakespeare wrote:
"The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones."
Judge Rich, rest in peace....
Andis Kaulins [6/02/2006 12:00:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Net Neutrality and the WWW Revisited
We posted on Net Neutrality and the WWW just a few days ago.
Digg has a new link to a 31 May 2006 International Herald Tribune article titled Digital Dialogue: 'The Internet Isn't Free' where it is written:
"Last week on Digital Dialogue, the IHT's technology Web log, we invited readers to send in questions for Tim Berners-Lee, who established the programming language of the Web in 1989 with colleagues at CERN, the European science institute.
In an interview with Victoria Shannon in Edinburgh, Berners-Lee answered many of these [questions]."
The full transcript of the questions posed by readers and answered by Timi Berner-Lee is here.
Net Neutrality and the WWW Revisited
We posted on Net Neutrality and the WWW just a few days ago.
Digg has a new link to a 31 May 2006 International Herald Tribune article titled Digital Dialogue: 'The Internet Isn't Free' where it is written:
"Last week on Digital Dialogue, the IHT's technology Web log, we invited readers to send in questions for Tim Berners-Lee, who established the programming language of the Web in 1989 with colleagues at CERN, the European science institute.
In an interview with Victoria Shannon in Edinburgh, Berners-Lee answered many of these [questions]."
The full transcript of the questions posed by readers and answered by Timi Berner-Lee is here.
Thursday, June 01, 2006--Andis Kaulins [6/01/2006 05:10:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
EU - USA Agreement on Air Passenger Data Annulled by the European Court of Justice
The EUobserver.com in a 30 May 2006 article by Teresa Kuechler titled "Court annuls EU-US data sharing agreement" writes that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has annulled the EU-US agreement on EU handovers of air passenger data to US security agencies, ruling that:
"Neither the Commission decision finding that the data are adequately protected by the United States nor the Council decision approving the conclusion of an agreement on their transfer to that country are founded on an appropriate legal basis."
Further material on this matter is found at:
EU Law Blog, Judgment in PNR cases : Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04
(excellent summary of the holdings and their consequences)
EurActiv.com, Advocate general backs Parliament challenge on passenger records (published 22 November 2005 and updated 30 May 2006, with links to EU official documents)
The Practical Nomad, Edward Hasbrouck's blog, and his posting of 19 May 2004 on European Commission declares USA travel privacy non-protection 'adequate' .
The text of the judgment in case C-317/o4 and joined case C-318/04 provides in its entirety as follows:
"IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
30 May 2006 (*)
EU - USA Agreement on Air Passenger Data Annulled by the European Court of Justice
The EUobserver.com in a 30 May 2006 article by Teresa Kuechler titled "Court annuls EU-US data sharing agreement" writes that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has annulled the EU-US agreement on EU handovers of air passenger data to US security agencies, ruling that:
"Neither the Commission decision finding that the data are adequately protected by the United States nor the Council decision approving the conclusion of an agreement on their transfer to that country are founded on an appropriate legal basis."
Further material on this matter is found at:
EU Law Blog, Judgment in PNR cases : Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04
(excellent summary of the holdings and their consequences)
EurActiv.com, Advocate general backs Parliament challenge on passenger records (published 22 November 2005 and updated 30 May 2006, with links to EU official documents)
The Practical Nomad, Edward Hasbrouck's blog, and his posting of 19 May 2004 on European Commission declares USA travel privacy non-protection 'adequate' .
The text of the judgment in case C-317/o4 and joined case C-318/04 provides in its entirety as follows:
"IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
30 May 2006 (*)
(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Air transport - Decision 2004/496/EC - Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America - Passenger Name Records of air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 25 - Third countries - Decision 2004/535/EC - Adequate level of protection)
In Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04,
ACTIONS for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 July 2004,
European Parliament, represented by R. Passos, N. Lorenz, H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
supported by:
European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), represented by H. Hijmans and V. Perez Asinari, acting as Agents,
intervener,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M.C. Giorgi Fort and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,
defendant in Case C-317/04,
supported by:
Commission of the European Communities, represented by P.J. Kuijper, A. v