Brrroooommm https://t.co/Vigi7c28td— Pau Garcia-Milà (@pau) June 14, 2014
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S - It scored a perfect 5.0 NHTSA safety rating
4 Apr 2014
The Tesla Model S is the most important car Top Gear has tested. Let's just throw that out there. A handsome if generic-looking exec hatch, it threatens to do to the traditional car industry what Amazon did for retailing and Apple's iTunes infrastructure did to the music business - utterly rewire it.
The mainstream media loves Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, a man who is two-parts real-life Tony Stark to one-part Steve Jobs. The guy made a billion from Paypal, has his own space exploration company, and recently proposed the Hyperloop high-speed transportation system. He also used to own a McLaren F1, so rest easy - he ‘gets' cars the way we do. But, rather than build a ridiculous vanity supercar, he decided to apply 21st-century Silicon Valley thinking to a technology model and industry that epitomises the 20th century. Following the slightly tentative Tesla Roadster, the results are game-changing.
Add the Performance Pack, whose higher-capacity inverter boosts torque to 443lb ft and power to the equivalent of 416bhp (probably more, in fact), and you've got an all-electric car with the same step-off and start-line grunt as a Porsche Turbo.
Everything about the Model S is reassuringly familiar and utterly bewildering at the same time. You get in, select D and go. You don't even turn it on. There's no handbrake, no paddleshift and, wind and tyre rush apart, no noise. A tentative squeeze on the accelerator pedal is like dipping your toe in a reservoir of torque, but better to build up to it gradually. Back off and there's a hearty slug of regenerative braking. Pretty soon, you'll only be using the brakes to come to a complete halt in traffic.
...usefully low centre of gravity.
It's not a sports car, though. Yes, it'll warp like a spaceship to 62mph in just over four seconds, and it keeps rolling out great gobbets of torque until you're well past 100mph. Its reduction gearing means that peak power and torque are right on the money, so overtaking is supercar easy, and motorway work utterly seamless. It also handles pretty well, too, despite its two-tonne plus weight (blame those batteries). Fundamentally, it's a languid cruiser, rather than a thriller.
It's also an EV, so inevitably you begin thinking about the available energy and what you're doing with it in a completely different way. Responsibility becomes less of a chore. The 85kWh Model S will deliver a range of up to 265 miles, 220 without requiring you to drive like your family is strapped to the bonnet. It takes 15 hours to fully charge it from a standard 32-amp UK street or supermarket charging point, half that using Tesla's home charging apparatus. (Tesla's ‘Supercharger' stations are being rolled out in Europe and the US). Range anxiety isn't really on the radar....
...The Tesla Model S is incredible...
This isn't the America of old Detroit. The Silicon Valley interloper has changed everything.
Spain is one of the worlds largest oil importers. For €2000 I made my car run on liquid gas. http://t.co/9QuqgKgeEo— Martin Varsavsky (@martinvars) 15 Juin 2014
No blocking research data, please http://t.co/WvuCuxM7vI— Susana Borras (@SusanaBorras) March 11, 2014
Final non paper The European Parliament and the European Council are currently debating a new legislation about data protection. In the aftermath of Snowden’s affair and in the dawn of the big data era, there is currently a tendency in the political debate towards maximizing personal protection. This is indeed an important matter, and a necessary debate. Individual persons’ data protection is crucial, and the legislation must protect individual citizens. However the debate needs to be rebalanced a bit, because an obsessive and excessive individual data protection might end up harming the individuals and societies in unexpected ways.
This is the case of research data that is linked to civil register data. This type of data is mostly used for medical research. The Scandinavian countries have traditionally had a very comprehensive civil register data about their citizens. This data is combined with quite extensive medical data on these citizens, which comes typically from biobanks (tissue, blood, cancer tumor, etc). The scientific benefits of this data are undeniable. Several examples can be seen in a recent Danish non-paper.
The massive amount of individual citizens used in this type of research data makes virtually impossible to ask for individual consent to each of these persons. The size of the data is precisely what makes this data scientifically relevant and valuable. For that reason, the Scandinavian countries current legal framework does not request individual consent, but secures personal data protection through other legal mechanisms. These mechanisms are: a strict regulatory framework about the conditions under which the data can be used, an authorization and monitoring system that controls effectively this use, and a high level of law enforcement in these countries with an effective judicial system.
Members of the European Council and of the European Parliament must acknowledge the risk of enforcing a “one-size-fits-all” requirement of individual consent throughout Europe and throughout all types of data. The risk is actually killing an indispensable source of large-scale data for medical research that has put Europe at the forefront of medical scientific successes worldwide.
There are many types of data. And there are many ways and purposes for using data. Do not block research data, please.
Low-cost imports made by global firms using illegal software have drained $240 billion in revenue
01/30/14 - Today, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) unveiled a study by Bill Kerr, associate professor at Harvard Business School, and Chad Moutray, chief economist for the NAM, finding that unfair competition fueled by stolen software is a significant drain on manufacturing in the U.S. Estimated losses between 2002 and 2012 totaled nearly $240 billion in manufacturing revenue, $70 billion in GDP and 42,220 U.S. manufacturing jobs.
The study, unveiled during a panel discussion at NAM headquarters, is among the first to prove that stolen software use damages sectors of the U.S. economy beyond the software sector. “The startling losses manufacturers have suffered in the last decade due to intellectual property (IP) theft should jumpstart action by our policymakers and law enforcement officials,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “It’s absolutely clear that the effects of IP theft overseas are significantly felt here at home, threatening jobs, investment and growth...
...Then, however, a clever PhD student from the University of Toronto – Laurina Zhang – spotted a golden opportunity to do some truly illuminating research. The fact that EMI removed DRM some time before the other three record companies, created what researchers excitedly call “a natural experiment.”...
Publisher: American Association of Univ. Professors; 1st Edition edition (January 8, 2014)
"A magnificent document. It provides faculty, journalists, scientists, and policy makers with the information they need to confront and analyze this increasingly important problem . . . , and to assure that long standing concerns for academic freedom, ethical integrity, and the traditional values of the university will have a fighting chance throughout the United States."
--Gerald Markowitz, Distinguished Professor of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
"The 56 General Principles provide a nearly constitutional template for clearer understanding of how academy and industry collaborate today, and how they may do so more effectively in the future. Not to be missed is an invaluable Appendix giving exact language to use in incorporating these recommendations into faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements."
--Robert M. O’Neill, president emeritus of the University of Virginia and founding director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
We examine the potential benefits of product piracy to entrepreneurial firms. Specifically, we use a resource-based perspective to show that a decrease in the inimitability of an entrepreneurial firm's intellectual property does not necessarily diminish performance when piracy increases the value of this resource, and an information economics perspective to explain why and when imitation can increase the value of an intellectual property resource. This explanation reconciles empirical studies that indicate mixed results. It also expands the resource-based view by suggesting that reducing the value of one resource can directly increase the value of another.
(Years earlier working paper: www.latienda.ie.edu/working_papers_economia/WP04-08.pdf)
de Castro, Julio O. and Balkin, David B. and Shepherd, Dean A., Knock-Off Or Knockout?. Business Strategy Review, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 28-32
Also see following, by different authors
January 2014 (PDF, 28 pages) with the participation of several professors.
Just in time for Copyright Week, we're celebrating a huge win for the open access movement. Today, Congress passed the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. For the most part, it focuses on government spending and budget cuts we've seen covered in the news. But the bill also contains important language (PDF) promoting public access to federally funded research, making sure that taxpayers get a real return their investment.
Specifically, the bill requires federal agencies under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education with research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to articles resulting from federally funded research—all within 12 months of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
This is big. ...
Until February 5th, everyone can share opinions on copyright with the European Commission through its Copyright Consultation and yes, your opinion counts. Anyone who works with researchers, or who cares about future library services and access to cultural heritage will be affected by the results of this consultation.
Not convinced? Try answering the following questions:
Would your library service be adversely affected if you had to request permission from the rights holder for every single hyperlink on your website?
Would you like to ensure that our born-digital cultural heritage is preserved and remains accessible for the future?
Would your researchers like to be able to borrow e-books (e.g. via inter-library loan) in the same manner that they can borrow analog books?
If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions then you should respond to the consultation
LIBER has gone through the consultation and highlighted some of the most important questions for libraries. We have turned this into a straighforward guide (see below), which you can use to quickly and easily make your voice heard on the topics that matter most to you. Please forego your coffee or tea break today and respond! You can use the web version of our guide, or download a PDF version for easy printing.
If you could change copyright law in just 15 minutes, would you? Use our quick guide to do just that. http://t.co/zLZWVeWHd9— LIBEReurope (@LIBEReurope) January 13, 2014
La minería de datos provoca una rebelión en Europa, 17 Jan. 2014, sinc
Ni en toda una vida mucha gente podría leer todos los libros de su ebook. Menos aún sacar conclusiones de todas esas lecturas y crear nueva información. Lo mismo pasa en el ámbito científico, pero para eso se ha creado la minería de datos que permite a las máquinas leer y gestionar de forma masiva artículos o información web. En Europa se ha topado con una ley de propiedad intelectual poco flexible que produce una situación irónica: un investigador en EE UU puede explotar información de textos europeos con esta técnica, sin embargo los científicos desde el viejo continente lo tienen difícil.
Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill will be taking place on Monday 9th December #IP— Alliance for IP (@AllianceIP) December 5, 2013
The Official Journal 12/2013 is now available online http://t.co/JONO9nCBrR— EuropeanPatentOffice (@EPOorg) January 1, 2014
(See also 24th January, "Boardroom Strategies to Optimise IP Portfolios" of The Economist, Executive Roundtable Discussion, one day conference, London)
YouTube 7 Feb, 2013, Dr Roya Ghafele, Oxfirst Ltd. and Oxford University, will present a Webinar on how to extract value from IP Assets.
While few deny the contribution of intellectual property (IP) to business performance in modern economies, conventional paradigms of IP have led to the under-management of valuable assets. Companies often generate revenue from third parties through the use of licensing arrangements and other monetization techniques, yet patent rights are frequently, and unfortunately, identified solely with the preclusive aspects of patent law. However, despite common perceptions of them as a defensive tool that serves in litigation, patent rights hold the potential to be proactively managed to stimulate cash flow. IP is a pivotal intangible asset that impacts bottom line firm performance in a variety of ways. This Webinar discusses its role in corporate strategy.
Monica Horten: Proposed New EU Telecoms Package Doesn't Uphold Net Neutrality http://t.co/7q86mt5qn4— Media Policy Project (@LSEmediapolicy) September 12, 2013
ZDNetUK Summary of the book "Copyright Masquerade": The way in which corporations and other stakeholders seek to manipulate the formulation of intellectual property legislation around the world is an important story, and one that's well told in this engaging and informative book.
Monica Horten seems to like to write the kind of book that most people would find acutely painful: studies of the complex and lengthy routes by which EU legislation is formed. She is particularly interested in the machinations surrounding copyright: her previous book studied copyright law's colonisation of the telecoms package — itself an unusually abstruse area of law...
Donal O'Connell, Adjunct Professor, outlines why Intellectual Property is vitally important as we move in to an ever more digital and connected era:
Today this is completely reversed, with intangible assets making up 80% of the value of the company and only 20% being made up of tangible assets
It is also important that the right balance is struck between Intellectual Property law, Competition Law, and the benefits to society. This balance lies at or near the heart of our current legal and economic systems and involves the effect of intellectual property rights, and perhaps more importantly the breadth accorded these rights, not only on competition in existing markets but also on sequential or follow-on innovation.
The bimonthly WIPO Magazine (available in English, French and Spanish) shows intellectual property, creativity and innovation in action across the world, and highlights WIPO activities which support them.
Subscribe to receive the print edition (free of charge).
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world." WIPO currently has 186 member states, administers 26 international treaties, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland...
The seminar series features economists from around the world, presenting their latest research to a policy-oriented audience. It seeks to stimulate an informed discourse on the effects of IP policies on economic performance.
Videos of the seminars and relevant background material are available on this webpage. The views expressed by the seminar speakers are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO...
Does your design already exist? Search over 30,000 industrial designs through the Hague Express Database: http://t.co/jkaZWOAR7z— WIPO (@WIPO) January 2, 2014
...In fact, since copyright used to come in renewable terms of 28 years, and 85% of authors did not renew, 85% of the works from 1985 might be entering the public domain!...
January 1st is Public Domain Day! The Center observes the day with information on what it means in the United States. http://t.co/iXUidKGZlY— Public Domain Center (@DukeCSPD) December 31, 2013
NAI & IPO Release List of Top 100 Universities Receiving Patents in 2012 http://t.co/1kTySHN9s6— Donald Zuhn (@PatentDocs) January 8, 2014
By Donald Zuhn --
Last month, the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) published a list of the top 100 worldwide universities that received the most U.S. utility patents in 2012. The groups did not provide a detailed discussion regarding the compilation of the list, stating only that the list was based on data obtained from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. A comparison of the top spots on the list, however, indicates that the data is identical to that found in the IPO's annual list of the top 300 organizations receiving U.S. patents (see "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2012"). The top 20 universities on the NAI/IPO listing are as follows:
The complete list of 100 universities can be found here.
As we reported last month, the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution asserted in a paper that by relying on a technology transfer model based on patent licensing, only a few universities have been able to generate significant revenues, and in fact, most university technology transfer offices do not generate enough income to even cover their operating expenses (see "Brookings Paper Calls for Technology Transfer Model Based on University Start-ups"). That paper suggested that the highest earners among universities had become a select club with a stable membership, with only 37 universities having reached the top 20 of licensing revenue in any given year over the last decade. A comparison of the Brookings Institution's "select club" of 37 universities with the NAI/IPO list indicates that the following universities made both lists:
For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:
• "Brookings Paper Calls for Technology Transfer Model Based on University Start-ups," December 12, 2013
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2012," June 24, 2013
• "Another Look at IPO Top 300 and Life Sciences Top 53," June 11, 2012
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2011," June 7, 2012
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2010," June 30, 2011
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2009," May 26, 2010
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2008," May 14, 2009
• "IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders," May 22, 2008
• "IPO Posts List of Top 300 Patent Holders," April 20, 2007
Mapping Intellectual Property in Global Governance http://t.co/xPTNgColW4— Chidi Oguamanam (@Chidi_Oguamanam) January 10, 2014
Paperback: 280 pages
Publisher: Routledge (April 13, 2013)
In this interview, Intellectual Property Watch’s William New sat down with Prof. Chidi Oguamanam, a professor in the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, to talk about his recent book, “Intellectual Property in Global Governance: A Development Question.” The book, published by Routledge, covers issues of the knowledge economy, structures and regime dynamics, human rights, agriculture, traditional/indigenous knowledge, traditional cultural expressions/folklore, and management of intellectual property in global governance.
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): Could you please tell us about the book?
Chidi Oguamanam (CO): The first thing that will strike you is how the work brings the concept of global governance into IP analytical framework. Normally, when you talk about global governance, it resonates with the social and political scientists, administrators, development and international relations practitioners and miscellaneous actors at the global level, but hardly with those involved in IP law and policy. So, this work adds to the new trend in interdisciplinary exploration and understanding of IP.
IPW: How does the book address international organisations and IP policy?
CO: Most discussions about IP have been about regimes and institutions, such as WIPO, WTO, UNESCO, FAO, WHO, UNCTAD, etc. These include core IP regimes and institutions as well as those that are peripheral in regard to the subject of IP. But rarely has there been an attempt to weave the operational dynamics of these actors and institutions within the framework of global governance with a dedicated focus on IP.
The book explores how has IP has increasingly become ubiquitous in almost all critical sites of international law and policy, including trade, development, health, agriculture, environment, climate change, biotechnology and ICTs and their ramifications for north-south relations which constitute an integral aspect of global governance dynamic...
Welcome to the biennial Internet, Politics, and Policy (IPP) academic conference series. Our 2014 conference will explore the new research frontiers opened up by Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy. It aims to serve as a forum to encourage discussion across disciplinary boundaries on how to exploit crowdsourcing to inform policy debates and advance social science research.
CALL FOR PAPERS: IPP2014 - Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy (abstracts by: 14 March 2014)
Convened by the Oxford Internet Institute (University of Oxford) and OII-edited academic journal Policy and Internet, and supported by the ECPR Standing Group on Internet and Politics, the conference will take place at the University of Oxford on 25-26 September 2014.
We call for papers on the observed and potential implications of crowdsourcing for politics, policy and academic practice. Perspectives are welcomed from across science, social science and the humanities, from the academic and policy-making communities. We aim to identify what is novel in crowdsourcing, and the ways it enables and extends existing social and political processes...
Interview of CEO Zafar Khan who starts talking about Intellectual Property in part 5.
How To Build A Strong IP Portfolio: rPost CEO Zafar Khan http://t.co/LKgdTc7huj Sep 26th 2011— Sramana Mitra (@sramana) December 14, 2013
CopyrightX is a twelve-week networked course, offered each Spring under the auspices of Harvard Law School, the HarvardX distance-learning initiative, and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The course explores the current law of copyright and the ongoing debates concerning how that law should be reformed. Through a combination of pre-recorded lectures, weekly seminars, live webcasts, and online discussions, participants in the course examine and assess the ways in which law seeks to stimulate and regulate creative expression.
In 2014, CopyrightX will have three sectors:
Admission to the online sector of CopyrightX is free and is open to anyone at least 13 years of age, but enrollment is limited. Applications for admission will be accepted starting December 13, 2013. For details concerning the application and admission processes, see CopyrightX:Admission.
The lectures, reading materials, maps, and recordings that have been developed for CopyrightX are also available for use by teachers and students in other settings. All of these materials are licensed under a Creative Commons License, the terms of which are available here.
Details concerning the genesis and pedagogy of CopyrightX, the fruits of the 2013 version, and the design of the 2014 version may be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/CopyrightX_Assessment.pdf.
"Intellectual-property rights are rules that we create – and that are supposed to improve social well-being." http://t.co/yWz9HFzTFa— Project Syndicate (@ProSyn) December 13, 2013
Keynote address, (Word Doc, 4 pages and a bit).
"How do these ideas translate into precepts for business policy? I want to put forward three ideas. The first is a simple idea, a variant of the..."
Executive Summary (PDF, 8 pages):
96% of EU citizens agree important that inventors creators and performing artists can protect rights and be paid for their work #EUIPstudy— OHIM (@OAMITWEETS) November 25, 2013
Two top thinkers in the fields of innovation and intellectual property from the Haas School have contributed articles to a new special issue of California Management Review (CMR), the school’s peer-reviewed business journal.
The special summer 2013 issue on intellectual property management was published in collaboration with the European Patent Office.
In one article, Professor David Teece, faculty director of the Haas School's Institute for Business Innovation, stresses the importance of integrating intellectual property (IP) management into corporate strategy and business model design...
Open Innovation (Wikipedia) - Chesbrough
The central idea behind open innovation is that, in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (i.e. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (e.g. through licensing, joint ventures or spin-offs).
The open innovation paradigm can be interpreted to go beyond just using external sources of innovation such as customers, rival companies, and academic institutions, and can be as much a change in the use, management, and employment of intellectual property as it is in the technical and research driven generation of intellectual property.
Prof. Hugenholtz is a member of the Dutch Copyright Committee that advises the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands, and has acted as a consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the European Commission, and several national governments. He has been on international missions representing WIPO in China and Indonesia, and is a regular speaker at international conferences.
Prof. Hugenholtz is General Editor of the Information Law Series,which is published by Kluwer Law International. In 2001 he was elected a finalist in the Law category of the World Technology Awards (Wikipedia - World Technology Award#Law)
www.ivir.nl/staff/hugenholtz.html (See Publications)
www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/Intellectual_Property_and%20Innovation_Lisbon_Council.pdf, "Intellectual property and innovation: A framework for 21st century growth and jobs" (4 pages).
Everyone agrees that copyright in the European Union is in a state of crisis. But there is disagreement on what caused it and what to do about it. Rights holders generally complain that copyright law has left them defenceless against mass-scale infringement over digital networks, and call for enhanced copyright enforcement mechanisms. Authors lament that the law does little to protect their right to receive fair compensation from the copyright industries and the users of their works alike. Users and consumers accuse the copyright industries of abusing copyright, and using it as an instrument to conserve monopoly power and sustain outdated business models.
December 8, 2013,
Darling ES, Shiffman D, Côté IM, Drew JA. (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. PeerJ PrePrints 1:e16v1http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1
Twitter is a micro-blogging social media platform for short messages that can have a long-term impact on how scientists create and publish ideas. We investigate the usefulness of twitter in the development and distribution of scientific knowledge. At the start of the 'life cycle' of a scientific publication, twitter provides a large virtual department of colleagues that can help to rapidly generate, share and refine new ideas. As ideas become manuscripts, twitter can be used as an informal arena for the pre-review of works in progress. Finally, tweeting published findings can communicate research to a broad audience of other researchers, decision makers, journalists and the general public that can amplify the scientific and social impact of publications. However, there are limitations, largely surrounding issues of intellectual property and ownership, inclusiveness and misrepresentations of science 'sound bites'. Nevertheless, we believe twitter is a useful social media tool that can provide a valuable contribution to scientific publishing in the 21st century.
A startup hip to the ways of the Web and a publishing rival from pre-Net days are trying to teach each other a lesson. It's a tussle involving research papers and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Click DeansTalk "intellectual property" tag and the following link for information sources: EU public consultation - DeansTalk information source to help understand the issues before participating in the public consultation on the modernisation of copyright rules in a digital age (last update Jan 16)
As an information source to assist participation, starting December 7th, a list of links to Academic Papers or Literature Reviews/tweets/essays/articles/Blog Posts related to copyright rules in a digital age (organised by English, Spanish and French) will be compiled.
Any of the 150+ plus business school professors, 100+ university professors, 50+ universities, the 35 deans, 1000's of business thinkers, or 100+ bschool Twitter accounts followed here daily at BizDeansTalk who write about this topic will be included, as well as other stakeholders who write in those three languages. It's not necessary to use #copyright or #IP, but it might help.
The consultation is open until 5 February 2014. To learn more about the process and to submit your contribution (only in English), please visit the following website: EC.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules
All stakeholders are welcome to contribute to this consultation. Contributions are particularly sought from consumers, users, authors, performers, publishers, producers, broadcasters, intermediaries, distributors and other service providers, Collective Management Organisations, public authorities and Member States.