Call for Papers Globalization, Technology and Development

Call for papers:
Globalization, Technology and Development

The International Political Association Research Committees 04 on Public Bureaucracies in Developing Societies, 35 on Technology and Development (IPSA RC04 and RC35) and Webster University invite submission of papers for the Conference “Globalization, Technology and Development” to take place in St Louis, Missouri, USA, during 3, 4 and 5 of April 2007. This conference is part of the IPSA RC04 and RC35 Regional Meetings and the 2006/2007 Webster University Des Lee Visiting Lectureship for Global Awareness and it seeks to address the relation between globalization and technology and how their dynamic and dialectic relation impacts on development. The conference is co-chaired by Dr. Renu Khator, Provost of the South Florida University at Tampa and Chair of the IPSA RC04, Professor Dhirendra Kumar Vajpeyi, Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa and Chair of IPSA RC35, Professor Allan MacNeill, Director of the Department of Political Science and International Relations of Webster University, and Dr. Fernando Barrio, 2006/2007 Webster University Des Lee Visiting Lecturer for Global Awareness.

While the methodology is open, it is expected that the papers would be based on theoretical and empirical work leading to the development of grounded theory, as well as more policy orientated studies which feed directly into the policy making process. They would normally be built on a multi or inter-disciplinary approach.

The conference will likely include the following non-exclusive issues:

- Globalization of Intellectual Property rights, technology and development
- Globalization of technology and its impact on the Earth
- Innovation policy, technology and development
- International relations of technology transfers
- New technologies and the Digital Divide
- New technologies, communications policies and development
- Technology and human security

Submissions in the form of an abstract should be e-mailed to Dr. Fernando Barrio f.barrio@londonmet.ac.uk and it must be received by January 18th, 2007. Confirmation of acceptance will be communicated by February 9th, 2007. Papers and abstracts can be written in English, French or Spanish, but the presentations are expected to be delivered in English. Please submit your abstract of up to 300 words in .doc, .rtf or .pdf format, and include the following data:

Last name(s):
Given name(s):
Mailing address:
City:
State or Province:
Post Code:
Country:
Email address:
Affiliation:

Co-Author(s):

Conferencia Globalizacion, Tecnologia y Desarrollo/Globalisation, technologie et développement

Español/Francais

Solicitud de Ponencias:
Globalización, Tecnología y Desarrollo

Los Comités de Investigación 04 en Burocracias Publicas in Sociedades en Desarrollo y 35 en Tecnología y Desarrollo de la Asociación Internacional de Ciencia Política (IPSA RC35) y la Universidad Webster invitan a enviar propuestas de ponencias a ser presentadas en el Congreso Globalización, Tecnología y Desarrollo que tendrá lugar en la ciudad de St. Louis, Missouri, Estados Unidos de América, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Abril del 2007. Este congreso es parte del IPSA RC35 Encuentro Regional y la Cátedra Des Lee para la Conciencia Global 2006-2007 de la Universidad Webster, y busca referirse a la relación entre globalización y tecnología y a cómo esa relación dinámica y dialéctica impacta en el desarrollo. Los co-presidentes del congreso son la Dra. Renu Khator, Principal de la Universidad del Sur de Florida y Presidenta dek IPSA RC04, el Profesor Dhirendra Kumar Vajpeyi, Profesor de Ciencia Politica en la Universidad del Norte de Iowa y Presidente del IPSA RC35, el Profesor Allan MacNeill, Director de Departamento de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Webster, y el Dr. Fernando Barrio, Catedrático Visitante Des Lee para la Conciencia Global 2006-2007 de la Universidad Webster.

Mientras la metodología es abierta, se espera que las ponencias estén basadas en estudios teóricos y empíricos que lleven al desarrollo de teorías fundamentadas, al igual que estudios más orientados hacia políticas que alimenten directamente el proceso decisorio. Estas estarán normalmente construidas desde un enfoque inter o multidisciplinario.

El congreso incluirá, entre otros, los siguientes temas:

- Globalización de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, tecnología y desarrollo

- Globalización tecnológica y su impacto sobre la Tierra

- Políticas de innovación, tecnología y desarrollo

- Las relaciones internacionales de las transferencias de tecnología

- Las nuevas tecnologías y la brecha digital

- Nuevas tecnologías, políticas de comunicación y desarrollo

- Tecnología y seguridad humana

Las propuestas, en forma de resumen, deberán ser enviadas por correo electrónico al Dr. Fernando Barrio, f.barrio@londonmet.ac.uk, y ser recibidas hasta el 18 de Enero del 2007. Las aceptaciones serán comunicadas hasta el 9 de Febrero del 2007.

Tanto los resúmenes como las ponencias podrán ser escritos en español, francés o inglés, pero las presentaciones deberán ser hechas en inglés. Por favor envíe el resumen de su ponencia, hasta 300 palabras, en los formatos .doc, .rtf o .pdf, incluyendo los siguientes datos:

Apellido(s):

Nombre(s):

Dirección para correspondencia:

Ciudad:

Estado o Provincia:

Código Postal:

País:

Correo electrónico:

Afiliación Institucional:

Coautor(es):

Appel pour des rapports

Globalisation, technologie et développement

Le comité de recherches sur Bureaucraties Publiques dans les Sociétés en Développement RC04, le comite de recherches sur la Technologie et le Développement 35 de l’Association Internationale de Science Politique (AISP RC04 et RC35) et l'Université de Webster invitent la soumission des monographies pour la conférence "Globalisation, Technologie et Développement" qui aura lieu à St Louis, Missouri, aux États-unis, entre le 3 et le 5 avril 2007. Cette conférence fait partie de las réunions régionales d'AISP RC04 et RC35 et le 2006/2007 Des Lee Visitant Professorat pour la Conscience Globale de l’Université de Webster et cherche à s’adresser à la relation entre la globalisation et la technologie, et de la façon dont comment leur relation dynamique et réciproque porte sur le développement. La conférence est coprésidée par la Dr Renu Khator, Principal de l’Université de la Floride du Sud et Président d’AISP RC04, le professeur Dhirendra Kumar Vajpeyi, professeur de science politique à l'Université de l’Iowa du Nordique et Président d'AISP RC35, le professeur Allan H. MacNeill, directeur du département de la Science Politique et des Relations Internationales de l’Université de Webster, et le Dr Fernando Barrio, 2006/2007 Des Lee professeur Visitant pour la Conscience Globale de l’Université de Webster.

Tandis que la méthodologie est ouverte, on s'attend à ce que les articles soient basés sur la recherche théorique et empirique menant au développement de la théorie fondée, aussi bien que par les études de politiques orientées qui alimentent directement dans le processus de prise de décision politique. Ils seraient normalement construits sur l'approche multidisciplinaire ou interdisciplinaire.

La conférence inclura entre autre les sujets suivants :

- la globalisation des droites de propriété intellectuelle, technologie et développement

- la globalisation de technologie et son rapport avec le monde

- la politique d'innovation, technologie et développement

- les relations internationales des transferts de technologie

- les nouvelles technologies et la fracture numérique

- les nouvelles technologies, politiques de communications et de développement

- la technologie et la sécurité humaine

Les soumissions sous forme abstraites devraient être expédiées au Dr Fernando Barrio f.barrio@londonmet.ac.uk et devraient reçu au plus tard le 18 janvier 2007. La confirmation de l'acceptation sera communiquée le 9 février 2007. Les rapports et les résumés peuvent être écrits en anglais, français ou espagnol, mais les présentations devraient être communiquées en anglais.

Veuillez soumettre votre résume à au moins 300 mots dans le format de doc, de rtf ou de pdf, en incluant les données suivantes :

Prénom(s) :

Nom(s) :

Adresse:

Ville :

État ou province :

Code Postal :

Pays :

Email :

Affiliation :

Coauteur(s)

Want money? Sue Google?

The New York Times has a good analysis of the legal issues facing Google and some reflections made over that. It also, unsurprisingly, refers to the possibility of being sued after their YouTube purchase, but it seems that they agree with what I said several times about the unlikehood of being found liable for copyright infringment. As explained in the NYT article

Along with YouTube’s 34 million viewers, Google will inherit a lawsuit filed last summer against the company. Robert Tur, who owns a video from the 1992 riots in Los Angeles that shows a trucker being beaten by rioters, is suing YouTube, accusing it of copyright infringement. “Clearly, we investigated that whole issue,” said David C. Drummond, Google’s general counsel and senior vice president of corporate development. Mr. Drummond pointed to the “safe harbor” provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A number of courts have held that under this provision, Web sites are not liable for copyrighted content posted by users, as long as they promptly remove it when it is pointed out to them. “We rely on the same safe harbor that YouTube relies on, so we’re fairly familiar with the issues,” Mr. Drummond said. “If you look at it, it’s somewhat illustrative of the kinds of lawsuits we face.”

The same should apply in UK under the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 and the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 art. 19. If any judge decides otherwise, I think that eBay will be in far bigger trouble due to the massive trademark infringement that happens in its site, for which in addition eBay gets a percentage of the sale of the infringing goods...

Microsoft and security: an impossible marriage?

During the last month's VI World Conference of Computer Law, Lilian Edwards gave a very insightful talk about the dangers possed by cyberthreats, which was followed by a discussion about what to do in that respect. Most participants favored some sort of regulation, altough there was no consensus about what type of it. The argument of imposing either civil or criminal liability into the software producers hit the argument of the complexity of their product and the impossibility of guaranteeing a fault-free software. But, for how long? It could be argued that at least there should be some sort of regulation impossing obligations to vertify that the proper care and skills are used. The obligation to provide the service with proper care and skills already exists in the English Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 but it seems that there is a further need to certify it.
This week Microsoft released its new Internet Explorer version 7, with the motto "you wanted it easier and more secure" and today a flaw, a serious flaw, was already discovered. It is important to note that Microsoft threw a party in the Hack in the Box meeting in Malaysia to get help from the world's hackers to sort out its security problems but, according to The Tech Age "[a]n Internet Explorer 7 flaw, found just hours after the browser's launch, could result in sensitive data such as your internet banking details falling into the hands of criminals".
The topic of Internet personal security is now under the consideration of the UK's House of Lords and it seems that some legislative action might be proposed...will that be enough?

Report Internet in Argentina 2005/2006

The Argentine newspaper Clarin published its usually very good annual report on Internet in Argentina, made by the firm D’Alessio IROL and Clarin.com (in Spanish)
The report concludes that there are 10,320,000 users of Internet in Argentina (28% of the population) and that 81% of the users access the web every day. It also explains that this year new comers to Internet in the country are young people from middle and low class, and adults from the middle and upper middle class and that 9,000,000 people use the net to check on products that later will consume. It also reveals that the current economic bonanza in Argentina helps to the spread of broad band
It presents some interesting conclusions about patterns of usage, as consumers watching less TV and using less telephone due to using Internet and younger people using it for socializing and earn money, while for older people represents a connexion with their surrounding and a way to better use time.

More on YouTube's legal issues

Some days ago I wrote that those who were proclaiming that Google was buying a lawsuit were rushing into conclusions, and I made reference to a previous blog that said that the agressive way in which YouTube seemed to remove videos once a copyright infrigement notice had been given would shelter it from the Grokster test (and it seems clear that the Betamax and not the Napster case is relevant here, vg existence of non infringing uses). Well, the news that YouTube removed more than 29,500 videos for copyright infringement after receiving a complaint from a Japanese media industry group keeps showing that...so lawyers will have to wait.

No law, but amazing technology

The Japan Times reports on American and British researchers developing a cloak of invisibility. Although is still not perfect, by proving that the principle works they established the basis for perfecting a completely invisible cloak. I assume that there will be numerous legal implication, but I cannot think about any now...I'm too amazed!

Racist board game brings e-jurisdiction back to the table

CNN online reports that New South Wales state Premier Morris Iemma wants the game "Cronulla Monopoly" (a stupid and racist game "that invites players to "Win back Australia" by buying and selling land in the southern beach suburbs hardest-hit by clashes last December between white Australian youths and ethnic-Lebanese Australians") banned because it glorifies violence, which would contravene Australian law. However, the problems for the racist that made it could extend further than New South Wales, following the principles established in the, coincidentally, Australian case Dow Jones v. Gutnick (courts have jurisdiction over defendants when the effect of their actions impact the forum of the court). In many European countries such a ridiculous game will attract criminal liability for a variety of reasons (discrimination, incitement to racial hatred, racial hatred, and a long list of etceteras) and, although it might be protected speech in the US (remember Nationalist Social Party v Skokie) and American courts cannot decide what is the law in this topic, European courts have shown willingness and propensity to apply their jurisdiction over situations that reach their fora via Internet, as demonstrated by LICRA v Yahoo!

Digital city in Argentina

La Nacion reports that the Argentine City of Rosario has approved a project to install free wireless access in several points of the city. The idea will start to be materialized this coming October 27th, when during a week citizens of Rosario will be able to use Internet for free on computers installed in the main pedestrians-only street of the city. The plan is to expand the access points to cover most public offices, airports and terminals, to then cover parks and other public spaces. In the beginning around 1,000 anthenas will be installed, with a unitary cost of U$S500 each. An important initiative by the City of Rosario to be certainly praised. If this is the trend, it is difficult to see the viability of the business model of ideas like FON.

Will lawyers have they day in court?

The blawgosphere is full of post talking about Google buying a lawsuit by buying YouTube, but I think that lawyers (at least those that specialize in litigation) will have to wait for a while. Before agreeing with Google, YouTube had already secured agreements with several content owners and it seems that with the power of the search gigant, more agreements seem natural. So the problem remains with the business model (actually making money) and other legal issues (as for example, I repeat again, accessibility). But if Google keeps this pace, will not be far from now when it starts with problems with the Antitrust regulators...

Online Gambling as a matter of values

In a post of several days ago, I was mentioning Antigua v USA in the WTO to question the legality of the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement act. It is important to note that the WTO's Appellate Body did recognize the right of US to ban certain activities based on moral grounds, but the issue is not with the values that such a ban supports: it is with the lack of consistency that implies. Again, gambling is not illegal in the US (both Nevada and Atlantic City are part of the US) and the assertion that allowing (or not) to gamble is one of the rights reserved to the states would probably not support a serious analysis due to the inter-state commerce issues that the methods of payments might attract. Furthermore, allowing horseracing brings to the floor the whole argument that betting has an impact on family values.
So is it really about values? Or the situation represents yet another example where the lack of serious and non-partisan discussion about what the real American values are leads to legislation that will probably hurt even more the same values that tries to protect? Has anyone told to those pushing for the legislation that if they are more than 23 million American online-poker players they are unlikely to stop due to legislation and they will probably restort to illegal sites? Has anyone thought about where the profits of those future illegal sites will go?
I don't bet, I don't like gambling, but I like far less legal inconsistency and poorly designed public policy...

More on the online gambling ban

When writing few days ago, I was focusing on the WTO-GATS issues, but still there is an argument to be made (or at least explored) about the legality within US of banning only certain types of online gambling, unless the US Congress is implying that horseracing is not gambling because all the races are fixed...but if you want to now the level of understanding of the members of the US Congress on the topic, just check the piece of Jon Stewart on it.

The law, the business and…the law

Every semester's first week of class I use examples of some old or new e-business to explain to my students (who are business students and don’t want to be lawyers) why law is so relevant to business and is becoming even more relevant, and the YouTube valuation saga shows again what I refer to. The valuation of the company, calculated at U$S1,000,000,000 by its CEO, has had both the business and bloglosphere communities talking about it and trying to decipher whether he is right or wrong. So, starting with the law, the problem that might put YouTube valuation close to zero dollar is represented for being the conduit of copyright infringement at massive scale. However, it could be argued that since YouTube itself does not post material and does not participate in the postings, it should not attract liability for contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement (as did the original Napster according to RIAA v Napster), and because it seems to take a quite aggressive stand on removing infringing material once a complaint is received, it would also not satisfy the requirements for inducement to copyright infringement established in MGM v Grokster. Furthermore, it can clearly say that it has non infringement uses (Sony Betamax case) and in any case still could use the defence of mere conduit or venue (as eBay does to get away with making money over huge trademark infringement in its site). Still, it seems very plausible that if any content producer buys YouTube the others will go to the throat accusing it of any possible form of copyright infringement, which would imply that the buyer would be buying a gigantic lawsuit (even though it might be winnable).
Now lets imagine that the copyright bits are sorted out (what probably could happen if Disney buys YouTube, because the US Congress will rapidly change the law to avoid a problem to such an important contributor to human culture as Disney ;-), and the business model problems will arise. Nobody has figured out how to transform the millions of YouTube users into customers that leave (directly or indirectly) some money in the company’s coffers and there is also a problem of costs. Regardless how cheap storing and bandwidth are becoming, hundreds of millions of users storing hundreds of millions of videos plus the technological measures that would allow the owners of the company to make some money, will represent a quite interesting amount of money that will make the company a cash thirsty one, what would make the price of the advertisement or the usage quite hefty. But again, let’s assume that one of the gurus-to-be designs an unheard of and really novel business method that allow to overcome those problems, then the law would kick in again.

As I was writing some days ago (and you need to read the comments left by a hearing impaired person), in addition of the inherent unfairness represented by the creation of sites and tools that at the same time enhance substantially the experience of some users and forbid others from using them at all, this trend of video-rich content without the proper accessible counterpart might be breaking the law, and, if somebody if going to make a billion dollars in the process, probably the authorities would ask for compliance, which will have a big impact on the costs and user friendliness, and will bring us back to the viability of the business model…

Nobel Prize exposes fallacy of profits motivating innovation

The award of the Nobel Prize of Chemistry to Professor Roger D. Kornberg of Stanford University School of Medicine represents not only a very good news for the Kornberg family (his father won the Nobel Prize too!), but it also has certain consequences for the IP discussion. One of the arguments of the knowledge industry (or those who seem to speak for them) is that strong IP rights are necessary to encourage innovation and accordingly stronger IP rights will bring more innovation, but there have been some counterarguments in the past pointing out that most of the relevant basic innovation is carried out with public funding and that the public health arguments of those supporting stronger IP rights are bogus ones, and this Nobel prize seems to confirm it (again). As reported in the New York Times, “Dr. Jeremy M. Berg, director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, said that honoring Dr. Kornberg showed the importance of taxpayer-supported basic research not focusing on a specified goal. The institute has financed Dr. Kornberg’s work since 1979, even when it was unclear whether the research would be successful, Dr. Berg said" and the Washington Post adds that "[u]nderstanding how gene transcription works mechanically in three dimensions -- a 30-year quest -- has no direct medical application", and thus should not be patentable, but it continuates saying "the events Kornberg studies are so central to the function of cells that understanding them will undoubtedly have practical uses." What it is probably clear is that Professor Kornber’s work would have not been supported by private institutions in need of profit to justify their innovation programs and, therefore, we are in front of yet another instance where innovation has non-economic incentives, which invalidates the whole idea of strengthening the IP system to guarantee profiteering rates to companies so they invest more in innovation and benefit society.

Online gambling ban? or sham?

The news that the US Congress passed legislation prohibiting the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers for online gambling went around the globe and quickly hitting the market value of most online gambling companies, and it also hit the blogosphere. But, is it true that this legislation is the real thing and that everything is lost for the online gambling industry trying to operate with American customers? It seems that we have been here before and, again, that legislation can be understood as being not compliant with American obligations under WTO's GATS. Still is legal to bet in the US (as far as I remember both Nevada and Atlantic City are part of the US) and it can be argued that the new legislation represents an unjustified protectionist measure, as WTO Appelate Body decided on the same topic in Antigua v USA. Is this the same administration that tries to push for free markets everywhere?