Reading

 

WordPress 2 (Visual QuickStart Guides) (Paperback) 

by Maria Langer (Author), Miraz Jordan (Author) 

WordPress support online

For a WordPress hosted blog refer to WordPress.com forums

For a WordPress.org server installation refer to Codex

Papers: background reading

Copyright and Provenance: Some Practical Problems

Source: Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering

Copyright clearance is an increasingly complex and expensive impediment to the digitization and reuse of information. Clearing copyright issues in a reliable and cost-effective manner for works created in the last 100 years can involve establishing complex provenance chains for the works, their copyrights, and their licenses. This paper gives an overview of some of the practical provenance-related issues and challenges in clearing copyrights at large scale, and discusses efforts to more efficiently gather and share information and its copyright provenance.

Via Docuticker full paper download link

 

Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video

Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, co-director of the law school’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, show that many uses of copyrighted material in today’s online videos are eligible for fair use consideration. The study points to a wide variety of practices—satire, parody, negative and positive commentary, discussion-triggers, illustration, diaries, archiving and of course, pastiche or collage (remixes and mashups)—all of which could be legal in some circumstances.

Source: Centre for Social Media Paper plus video examples

 

The Principles of Distributed Innovation
Source: Karim Lakhani, Jill Panetta Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization Summer 2007 

Distributed innovation systems are an approach to organizing for innovation that seems to meet the challenge of accessing knowledge that resides outside the boundaries of any one organization. We provide an overview of distributed innovation systems that are achieving success in three different industries. We explore why people participate, the organizing principles of production, and the implications for intellectual property policy. Finally, the potential extensions and limitations of this alternative model of innovation are considered.

Source: Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

 

Secrets Revealed: How Magicians Protect Intellectual Property without Law

Intellectual property scholars have begun to explore the curious dynamics of IP’s negative spaces, areas in which IP law offers scant protection for innovators, but where innovation nevertheless seems to thrive. Such negative spaces pose a puzzle for the traditional theory of IP, which holds that IP law is necessary to create incentives for innovation.

Source: Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

 

Technological Innovation and Monopolization
Source: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Faculty Research Working Paper Series

This paper, written for an American Bar Association compendium on competition policy, reviews seven of the most important U.S. antitrust cases charging firms in high-technology industries with violations of Sherman Act Section II — i.e., with monopolization. The principal target firms were Standard Oil of New Jersey, General Electric (in lamps), AT&T, du Pont (for cellophane), Xerox, IBM, and Microsoft (both in the United States and Europe). From an analysis of the historical records, it is clear that in most instances, the legal system took far too long to deal with the contested issues. In the interim, firms that had achieved dominant positions through innovation often embraced new technologies slowly, sometimes pursuing an explicit “fast second” strategy — that is, waiting to innovate until their positions were threatened by outsiders. The stimulating effect of outside challenges suggests that entry should be kept open, among other things by combating the extension over time of blocking patent positions. Procedural reforms for accelerating the adjudication of complaints are proposed.

Via Docuticker full paper download link

 

University Software Ownership: Technology Transfer or Business as Usual
Source: Rai, Arti K. and Allison, John R. and Sampat, Bhaven and Crossman, Colin (work in progress; via Duke Law Faculty Scholarship Repository)

University policies towards ownership of software have recently become quite controversial. In this paper, we present what is to our knowledge the first systematic study of such ownership. We rely in part on a unique, hand-curated database of university software patents. The combination of our quantitative and qualitative research yields a number of interesting results. First, software patents represent an important, and growing, component of university patent holdings. Second, the main determinant of university software patenting is not computer science-related R&D (or even overall R&D) but the university’s overall tendency to seek patents on R&D outputs. The second finding indicates that universities may be using a “one size fits all” technology transfer strategy. The problem with such a strategy is that software is likely to follow a different commercialization path than other types of university-generated invention. One possible consequence is lawsuits in which university patents are being asserted against firms that have commercialized independent of the patent.

Via Docuticker full paper download link

 

Synthetic Biology: Caught Between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons
Source: PLoS Biology

The relationship of synthetic biology to intellectual property law has […] been largely unexplored. Two key issues deserve further attention. First, synthetic biology, which operates at the confluence of biotechnology and computation, presents a particularly revealing example of a difficulty that the law has frequently faced over the last 30 years — the assimilation of a new technology into the conceptual limits around existing intellectual property rights, with possible damage to both in the process. There is reason to fear that tendencies in the way that the law has handled software on the one hand and biotechnology on the other could come together in a “perfect storm” that will impede the potential of the technology. Second, synthetic biology raises with remarkable clarity an issue that has seemed of only theoretical interest until now. It points out a tension between different methods of creating “openness.” On the one hand, we have intellectual property law’s insistence that certain types of material remain in the public domain, outside the world of property. On the other, we have the attempt by individuals to use intellectual property rights to create a “commons,” just as developers of free and open source software use the leverage of software copyrights to impose requirements of openness on future programmers, requirements greater than those attaching to a public domain work.

Via Docuticker full paper download link

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Teaching, but not as we know it

%d bloggers like this: