BoingBoing.net has all the links and goodness here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/26/comic-explains-the-f.html

A useful link to all of the SF Chronicle's recent coverage on the topic can also be found here:

http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Copyright

Ashlee Vance writes in today's New York Times Sunday Business section about the problems open source software has with enforcing the agreement of users to publish the source code with the the actual software, so that it can be further developed link here. I don't think the article explained the issue very well; it says only that the agreement with the open source community has been violated.

The point of the open general license is that software which finds new uses or builds on the underlying code and alters it then becomes available to the rest of the open source community. Hopefully, the accumulation of applications will in time be a highly competitive rival to the big profit making software suppliers like Microsoft and Apple. It is also a way to reduce the high cost of profit-seeking software makers that retain their software monopolies for long periods.

The article makes a point that financial penalties for failing to abide by the standard open software agreement have been modest if not nil. This no doubt softens the reluctance of users, as evidence by the rapid spread of such applications to new gadgets that are now pouring into the market.

Finally, the article sends readers to the Linux Foundation for more information; to Hewlett-Packard, which has helped develop a standardized inventory list for software so that companies can keep track of their code and licenses," and to a website, "Gpl-violations.org, an organization named after a popular open-source license, [which] receives an e-mail complaint from someone who suspects that a product may use open-source software without adhering to the rules" and checks it out.

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.