free-speech

Peter Hammer describes the value of economics in determining free speech issues as follows:

An economic evaluation of free speech must be met with mixed reviews. There is much that a proper view of economics can bring to this field of constitutional law. Economics can be useful when it is viewed as a science which examines the decisionmaking process, the study of optimization behavious subject to constraints. Economics cannot be helpful if it is viewed as a precise tool that can mechanically and independently determine the outcomes of complex problems. As a method, economics can lend valuable insight to the technical process of constitutional decisionmaking. In this capacity it can be used to assist in the framing of issues and in isolating the appropriate factors for judicial consideration. Economics is not helpful, however, in the inherently subjective process of weighing and quantifying competing concerns. It is wrong not to recognize this limitation, and it is dangerous to assume that difficult, value-laden decision areas in areas such as free speech can be decided mechanically by appealing to an economic formula. Difficult constitutional choices cannot be avoided by viewing first amendment issues through the lens of an economic perspective.

(Peter J. Hammer "Free Speech and the "Acid Bath": An Evaluation and Critique of Judge Richard Posner's Economic Interpretation of the First Amendment" (1988) 87(2) Michigan Law Review 499-536)

I think there is also much to be said for the limitations of economics in determining the appropriate levels of intellectual property protection. James Boyle also makes this precisely this point in relation to the gene patent debate.

Since 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been
the most important, and the most effective, inspiration for per-
sonal, national and international efforts to secure and protect basic
rights of mankind.

I'm currently looking at the importance of freedom in Intellectual Property rights, particularly in patent law, and I'm just making a note of this resource - lots of stuff on the importance of free speech in the context of press freedom. The introduction has a very good breakdown of the text of Article 19, explaining the significance of individual words and phrases in it.
If you don't fancy downloading the PDF, have a look in the Google cache at a HTML version.

Broderbund Software, Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., 648 F. Supp 1127, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 1986) ("The ... designer of any program that performed the same functions as `Print Shop' had available a wide range of expression governed predominantly by artistic ... considerations")

powered by performancing firefox

Here is an article, picked up via Slashdot which expressly links software with a right to free speech. Seems like there was a case on it too.

powered by performancing firefox

How difficult could it really be to code something in Python to handle legal referencing in Word (or anything else). Here's a rough sketch of how it should work:

Assumptions:

• Use BibDesk, hence BibTeX formatting (\cite{}, BibTeX db)
• Can access footnote numbers for cross-referencing purposes.
• Have a 'database' which maps types (journal, book, etc) to first citation and subsequent citation formats like this:
  

  {'case':'<i>%s</i>%s %s %s %s' % (title, year, volume, reporter, page), }

1. Scan the document for cite keys, building a table of the location of the first occurrence of a citation (ie footnote number).
2. Run back through, if first instance, use long format, if subsequent instance, use short format plus

'above n%s' % xref

That would be a good start anyway. Need to find out:

1. About PyUNO (or some such thing) esp on OSX
2. Whether there is already code for handling BibTeX databases
   

This article by Richard Barbrook looks like it could be really useful. My favourite quote from a quick skim of the first page is "Free speech is free trade".

EU patent fight hots up

I finally got around to reading an article on the European Patent Litigation Agreement, which seems designed to hand over patent litigation to an EU-based court, "controlled by the same people as the EPO". It is reminiscent of the US creation of the Federal Circuit court which is widely regarded as being pro-patent. The article claims that software patents are a serious reason why the EPLA is being pursued, but also that the EPLA itself goes way beyond just the software patent issue.

Free speech & copyright butt heads (pun intended)

In this article, a member of the Ohio Republican Party has been told to stop using footage of a Democrat candidate taken on the floor of the Ohio House of Representatives. This sort of thing would be almost enough to trigger the Australian 'implied guarantee of freedom of political communication'. :)

UN University undermines patent stimulate competition argument

Technology transfer is better done in Europe than the US, the UN University in the Netherlands has suggested in a new study. So much for the claims  by the EPO et al that software patents are needed to ensure the EU can compete with the US. If it aint broke, why fix it?

Australian Universities should give away their research

Gavin Moodie writes:

"As the Australian policy and management consultant John Howard observes, researchers and research organisations will, except in very rare situations, earn more from being paid for their work (through contracts and consultancy) than from licences and royalties flowing from intellectual property or from income earned in spin-off companies."

Because of this, Moodie says, universities should, with the exception of the biotech area, put their research in the public domain "as a contribution to the general good". But he loses me when he says this should be subject to a blockbuster clause. As any good lawyer knows, you can't make a gift if you leave strings attached.