Brad DeLong reports that Citigroup published an appraisal of the Obama administration's bank reform policy in 2009 link here. It was mild and viewed the changes favorably, so the report conveyed a sense of relief at the bank. Come 2010, the bank has now sent a blog which posted the report, a take-down notice for violating its DCMA link here.

DeLong's verdict; "Whatever you think about the DMCA, it should not be used to prune the historical record of primary sources about how various economic policies were perceived at the time." Brad then reprints the Citigroup report link here. Good for him.

The PBS Newshour last night had a interesting take on medical research: that the problem slowing medical progress is the failure to coordinate research and development, producing lots of research to very little effect. To many of us, the problem is more likely with the IP laws and the commercial advantage that exclusive IP rights give. The program did not examine those issues and had it done so, its point would have been greatly reduced. As things are, drug firms have a strong motive to slow innovation. You can see the video and read the transcipt here.

There is an interesting implication in the research paper from the British Medical Journal relating to possible tobacco advertising on YouTube. The part which struck me was this statement:

"Since content may be removed from YouTube if it is found to breach copyright or if it contains offensive material, there is scope for the public and health organisations to request the removal of pro-tobacco content containing copyright or offensive material."

It seems to be a suggestion that the ability to claim for copyright infringement should be available, not just to the author, but anybody who might find it useful as a tool for censorship.

Regards Paul Lockett

I've seen this before - it's very good (via Alex Khatchaturian)

I am writing an article for the Freeman "on the recent silly examples of intellectual property claims." I know of quite a few, but I'm hoping our readers and contributors will have some good suggestions - leave a comment or send me an email (david@dklevine.com). Short deadline though, I have to have the article done by October 11.

Anybody who has spent some time in Switzerland must have noticed the big orange "M" of the largest retailer, Migros. This is not your usual retailer, as it is produces the goods in its own facilities, thus cutting a middleman or two, and is owned by its customers. Interestingly, it produces only for the domestic market, and very rarely you will find its brands abroad. While Migros carries only store brands, they are of good quality and often designed to compete with "well-known" brands from competing retailers.

And Migros has for decades been pushing the limits of how closely it can imitate brand products, often openly making puns on brand names and besting the quality of the imitated product. And while the imitated brand holders were upset, there is little they could do and Swiss courts have been largely sympathetic to Migros. The judges are probably shopping there.

Now it seems that Migros may have overstepped some boundary. As the Tagesanzeiger reports (in German), the new line of ice cream "Jane & Mary", a clear imitation of "Ben & Jerry", will be modified once the current stock is sold. Brand holder Unilever must have made some legal threat that had some impact, but how is unclear. Migros does not need Unilever, being quite self-reliant, and there have been more blatant imitations in the past.

In any case, the next time you are in Switzerland, check out Migros and try to recognize all the imitations. And sample its goods, especially in the chocolate and dairy section.

via George Leef - who knows the restaurant - we have the following insanity.

Mike Masnick takes up the question of the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression link here. I have to admit it came as a revelation to me. Is there any way to argue that copyright doesn't limit one's freedom of expression? If you think it does as I now do, then your argument conflicts with the First Amendment of the Constitution which says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...."

This provision clearly conflicts with Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...."

I am no lawyer, but since the first amendment was passed on March 4, 1789 after the Constitution was ratified on September 25, 1789, it would logically override that part giving Congress such power (for dates link here). Of course, there is never any certainty about how the Supreme Court may decide an issue.

Mike recommends a book which I haven't read yet, but his statement is pretty strong. He says David Lange and Jefferson Powell, the authors of No Law, "spend the first half making the compelling and detailed (if densely written) case that copyright law absolutely violates the First Amendment." They apparently backslide in the second half.

I do take personal exception to Mike's comments on the State Department officials toadying to the IP interests. As a middle aged and fairly senior diplomat, I had to try to enforce our IP agreements with the Korean government. I had no option to express an opinion, but instead was told to enforce what I was told was the law.