• Walking the line – the balance between legitimate negotiation and economic duress – Lexology – Economic duress and voidable contracts during tough economic times http://t.co/wAbKHQyZ #d
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• University Startups Conference 2012 Home Page — National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer – Save the date – NCET2 – 6th annual university start ups conference – Jan 2012 http://ncet2.org/UpcomingEvents/UnivStartupConf12/ #d
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error

All typographical and clerical errors are subject to correction.

Is this type of clause really necessary? I say no.

If it truly is a “typographical or clerical error”, won’t both parties pretty much agree to its interpretation anyway? If they’ll agree anyway, why would you need to clarify this with a specific clause in the contract?

However the parties could dispute as to whether it is an error at all, such as perhaps the (dreaded-but-all-too-often) mismatch of spelled out versus number:

The notice period is fifteen (30) days

If the two parties disagree as to whether they meant 15 or 30 days, then it wouldn’t be a [typographical][http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typographical+error] or [clerical error][http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clerical+error], and so wouldn’t be solved by this clause.

Seems like fluff to me and not worthy of sticking into your contractual boilerplate.

Rackspace’s Cloud Terms of Service has this term:

"The event of a dispute between us regarding the interpretation of applicable law or the AUP, Rackspace's reasonable determination shall control"

Nice! So you can’t argue about the interpretation of the law or the AUP, though of course you could always argue that Rackspace’s interpretation was unreasonable, provided of course that this clause is enforceable. I’m no consumer contracts experts, so would be good to hear whether this was enforceable in a B2C setting, and of course in a B2B setting as well. Seems like you should have a fundamental right to argue about the interpretation of the law, if not the AUP.

Some interesting point about the history of patent exclusions and exceptions:

• Naturally there was some large variation internationally prior to TRIPS. A 1988 WIPO survey of the then 97 Paris Convention members revealed some fun exclusions, such as for Cosmetics (Bulgaria and Republic of Korea).
• In addition to TRIPS, the European Patent Convention (EPC), the PCT (through how search is handed in Article 39), and even WIPO’s Model Law 1979 have contributed to some harmonisation on exclusions.
• One interesting point — the Community Patent Convention’s Article 27 contributed to some harmonisation of exceptions (as a sort of model law) even though it was never enacted.

Prof. Bently then went to outline some different rationales for having exclusions and exceptions, and to compare the approach — I do hope he makes his slides available. In any event, this lecture was tied to a study done for WIPO that he was a part of about (what else) patent exclusions and exceptions for the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents: Experts’ Study on Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights – SCP/15/3.

Prof. Bently outlined some interesting conclusions for “international lawmakers and interpreters” from the experiences with the report:

• Facilitate interaction between exclusion/exception provisions. If excludable under TRIPS Article 27 then it should be possible to operate an exception under Article 30.
• There are dangers with interpreting TRIPS Article 30 [the three step test for patents] narrowly. In particular “limited exceptions”. It could impede positive developments.

For me, this leaves open two normative questions of patent exceptions and exclusions:

1. Should we have further harmonisation of exclusions and exceptions for patents within the International IP System?
2. If we should have further harmonisation, who should deal with emerging questions in this area, particularly as they apply to morality, especially in light of changing technology?

I certainly don’t know the answers to either one of these, but I think that they are very interesting questions. Some points to consider:

• TRIPS uses a minimum standards approach and thus sets a floor but not a ceiling for protection. Protection is very much the perspective taken by TRIPS on IP, and this means that the exclusions in TRIPS are optional, for example, and states can protect these areas if they choose.
• Because TRIPS leaves exceptions and exclusions as options, this means that they can be overridden by regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

As a result, should we look at making patent exceptions and exclusions mandatory and not optional? Not sure I know the answer, but if we want true harmonisation, it’s perhaps the optimal approach.

• Artists Don’t Think Piracy Hurts Them Financially, Study Shows | TorrentFreak – "Yesterday, the Dutch Government announced plans to outlaw downloading of all copyrighted material and measures to make it easier to block websites that facilitate copyright infringement. An interesting move, particularly since a survey they published on the same day shows that artists’ views on file-sharing are not all that negative."
• Priceline founder targets tech giants in patent suits | Politics and Law – CNET News – Walker-Digital, priceline.com founder, sues Apple Google and others on web patents
• Austin making a pitch for a regional patent office – Austin Texas pitch for regional patent offices.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/open-wireless-movement

My summary — We should encourage sharing of open wireless networks in order to increase the availability of cost-free and ubiquitous internet access. In order to get there we need:

1. Devices that allow easy sharing of your own wireless network while maintaining security and traffic priority.[1]
2. Networking protocols that allow users of open wireless networks security and privacy
3. As the above two start to come into place, we also need to change the culture to default on sharing.

What the legal community can do

So this movement addresses, not even the last mile of the network, rather the last 100 feet or so of the home WiFi network.

What can we do on the legal side of things? Make sure that the providers of those last 100 feet – individuals sharing their broadband connections – have access to the same legal protections as ISPs for third party access via their network. Individuals, like ISPs, shouldn’t be responsible when merely providing a conduit for access.

Move the open wireless idea upstream

I’d like to suggest that we need to start looking at ways to democratise and crowd source more of the telecommunications infrastructure back behind the last 100 feet. What about exploring wireless mesh networking as ways for local traffic to stay local?

For the legal types, I wrote about the legal aspects of wireless mesh networking in a paper in 2005. I believe “Individuals as ISPs” is likely key to making this happen as well.

[1] The only place where traffic shaping sounds good to the consumer!

Abstracts can be submitted until May 15th 2011.

The organisers, Lilian Edwards and Mathias Klang have apparently “already received submissions on, inter alia, the Twitter accounts of Abba, the legal personality of zombies, robot ethics and liability, law and virtual pornography, soft law in World of Warcraft, whistleblowing after Wikileaks, and the legal implications of time (or possibly the chronological implications of law)”.

If you have some off-the-wall legal paper screaming for the light of day and can make it to Sweden, submit! In case you’d like more:

In brief it is a small (c 40 people) blue-skies workshop, devoted to short, interesting papers about the intersecting worlds of law, technology and popular culture (not necessarily all at once). It has also been described as “stand up comedy for lawyers” and “like all the other conferences, only without the boring papers”. It thoroughly encourages non lawyers and interdisciplinary presentations. Powerpoints are (almost always) essential, LOLcats are ubiquitous, and geekery is more or less mandatory. A knowledge of recent iterations of the vampire genre, the works of Alan Moore and a healthy cynicism about the Singularity are also often helpful

GikII is traditionally free (as in free-beer), and this includes the conference dinner (always good fun). So submit already.

• Google reaches deal with European patent office to translate 50 million patents – The Washington Post – The technical solution to patent language problems is more and more being implemented.
• IBIL Debate: Do Patents Incentivise or Inhibit Innovation?… – Eventbrite – 6 April at UCL – IBIL Debate: Do Patents Incentivise or Inhibit Innovation? http://ibil-debate-2011.eventbrite.com/ #d
• Quantum Random Bit Generator Service – Uses calculus for the CAPTCHA. Perhaps this should be a CATTMGHA: Computer automated test to tell math geeks and humans apart?
• HR 768 – Bill to provide for a federal right of publicity for armed forces members – Very interesting — A US federal proposed right of publicity for soldiers. Publicity rights mostly (or almost exclusively?) state level issues.
• Paul Goldstein – “Copyright on a Clean Slate” – Univ. of Houston Spring Lecture – Perfect if you are already in Texas for SXSW and an IP geek!
• National Broadband Map (United States) – Nice interactive site showing broadband coverage in the US.

It’s naturally in Norwegian, however Google Translate to the rescue — full English translation at end of this post.

Note that there is also an annotated version, and a post in English about the process.

Some comments and initial impressions on this translation:

• Great that they are CKAN users!

• It is absolutely fantastic that they’ve gone such an open route. I do want to push a bit further and query why it can’t be even closer to the public domain and make attribution a “community norm” that is strongly suggested, but not legally required. How does requiring attribution as a legal rule help advance the goals of releasing the information?

• Also, and this questions is just as much for the open government community as for Norway, do we need another open data license? Are we just going to increase license proliferation? Most of the non-copyright issues present here (and in the UK’s OGL) could potentially be separated out into two different docs — one for the specific notifications on personal data and similar issues; and the second an established public open data license.

• I’m wondering what the proposed compatibility with the “Open Government License” means in practice? This is a specific license written by the UK government and not a public license hosted by an institution such as Creative Commons or Open Data Commons for use by anyone that comes along. What if another government copies the whole template for their own license? Is that compatible? What if another country copies some, but not all, of the OGL for their own license? Will that come under this compatibility? Will Norway be monitoring the available licenses in order to update their compatibility list?

• It is great that they’ve made this license compatible with CC-BY and Open Data Commons Attribution. I do wonder though what that compatibility means (for these and the OGL) and if they could be more specific. If the intent is to allow users to relicense under either of these two licenses, then they should make the very clear (either here or in a FAQ) for users. This could of course be a translation error and in Norwegian it could come across as perfectly clear.

Note that typically you would do a dual license if you want people to use and reuse content under multiple licenses — this means that they have their choice of which one to take the content under from the beginning.

Norwegian Open Data License – Google Translate’s translation

This license entitles you to copy, modify and make available information, given that naming the contributors and meets the conditions described in this license. By utilizing the information made available under this license, you accept the terms of this license.

This license shall not restrict any right or freedom as a licensee under the Freedom of Information Act or as a result of the exclusion or limitation of the Copyright Act.

1. Definitions

• “Database” shall mean a database or anything that is protected under Copyright Act § 43
• “Information” shall mean creations that are protected as intellectual property, by the Copyright Act, § 1, or that is protected under the provisions of related rights in the Copyright Act, Chapter 5 (including databases and photographs) that is made available under this license.
• “Copy” shall mean the reproduction of any kind.
• “Licensee” and “you” shall mean the natural or legal person who uses information under this License.
• “Licensor” shall mean the natural or legal person who actually has sufficient legal authority and make available information under this License.
• “Make available” shall mean any tilgjengeliggjøringshandling including, distribute, transmit, distribute, display, perform, sell, lend and lease.
• “Exploit” shall mean to make one or more intellectual property relevant actions that require the licensee’s permission.

2. License

Licensee may, with the limitations of this license, to utilize the information for any purpose and in any context, by:

• Copy the information and make available information of others,
• Change the information and / or combine the information with other information, and to copy and make available such amended or complex information.

The license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and without temporal or geographical limitations. The information can be used in any medium and format, whether it be known today or later will be known.

License does not and therefore not entitled to exploit:

• Personal information that is protected under the Data Protection Act unless there is legal basis for extradition of treatment and for the further processing of personal data
• Information that has been made available in breach of statutory duty of confidentiality, which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to law or that have been made available without the proper consent of the person who makes available the information under this license or without the proper consent of the other relevant parties
• Third-party rights that the licensor can not license the licensee
• Information that is protected by other intellectual property rights than copyright and related rights under the Copyright Act, Chapter 5, such as trademarks, patents and design rights, but this is not an obstacle to using information which the licensor’s logo is permanently embedded in the information or to name origin to the information under the provision below regarding attribution.

If the licensor has made available information that is not covered by the license, cf. list, the licensee delete such information.

The license is conditional upon the licensee meets the conditions that license. Licensee’s breach of this license implies that the license immediately and without notice terminate the licensee. Licensee shall, at such a breach, immediately and without notice, take such measures as are necessary to bring the infringement to an end, including deleting information that is made available in violation of this license.

3. Attribution

Licensee will name the source of the information as specified by the licensor, refer to this License and, where feasible, link to this License.

If the licensor does not specify how the attribution to be made, the licensee shall provide the following: “Contains data under Norwegian license for public data (NLOD) made available by [name of the licensor]“.

If the licensor has specified that the information is made available under a particular version of this license, cf. Article 8, the Licensee shall provide this.

Is the information edited licensee shall take reasonable steps to clearly label that changes have been made by the licensee.

4. Abuse

Licensee shall not use the information to mislead and not distort or misrepresent information.

Neither the licensor or other editors’ names or trademarks may be used to provide support to, to recommend or to promote the licensee or products or services using information without the express written consent of the licensor.

5. Disclaimer

The information provided “as is” and when it is available. The information may contain errors or omissions. Licensor makes no warranties, nor for the information content and timeliness. Licensor may at any time, without notice, temporarily or permanently cease to provide information to one or more licensees, including violations of the terms of this license, abuse or capacity problems.

Licensor disclaims, to the extent permitted by law, any liability for errors and deficiencies in the information and its delivery (including deficiencies related to data quality and defects).

Licensor shall not be liable for any direct or indirect losses arising as a result of exploitation of or in connection with the disclosure of information, regardless of cause and theory of liability. The limitation of liability under the previous sentence shall not apply if the licensor has committed any tortious acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

6. Statements of data quality and availability

This license does not preclude the licensor may provide supplemental statements about expected or intentional data quality and availability. Such statements shall be deemed to be of indicative nature and is not binding on the licensor. Disclaimers in Article 5 above applies in full even when it is given such guidance statements. Licensor may, by special agreement to give guarantees and make available information on conditions other than those required by this license.

7. License Compatibility

A contractual compatible license shall mean the following licenses:

• For all information: Open Government License (version 1.0),
• For those parts of the information does not constitute databases: Creative Commons Attribution License (generic version 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and Unported version 3.0),
• For those parts of the information constitutes Databases, Open Data Commons Attribution License (version 1.0).

If a licensee makes available a derived or compound induce contents, based on information covered by this License and any other forward-promoting contents are licensed under a contractual compatible license, make available not conducted under an appropriate contractual compatible license, cf. list. This provision shall not preclude other licenses for their content may be compatible with this license.

8. New versions of the license

Licensee may choose to utilize the information covered by the license under the new versions of this license will be issued by the responsible ministry (currently Ministry of Government Administration and Church Affairs) when these versions are final and official, unless the licensor by making available any of the information under this License and have expressed that only version 1.0 (consultation version) can be used.

9. Choice of Law and Jurisdiction

This license, including its conclusion, and any dispute and any claim arising from or relating to this License shall be governed by Norwegian law. Protection Council shall be the licensor general jurisdiction. Licensor may elect to bring claims of jurisdiction and / or, what comes to the intellectual property rights under the law of the country where the intellectual property rights enforcement is sought.

For more details of the kinds of evidence the review is looking for, please see the call for submissions at:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview/ipreview-c4e/ipreview-c4e-paper.htm