Intellectual property rights have long been a thorn in the Indian government's side, as Western businessmen would like nothing more than to see a legal, enforceable copy-rights regime. While software copyrights were addressed by the 1994 amendments to the dated Indian Copyright Law, the burgeoning field of biotechnology lacks copyright protection in India.
This is not to suggest, however, that intellectual copyrights are not a serious concern for Indian businessmen as well as Western ones. In India's Silicon Valley, Bangalore, conferences on intellectual property rights take place regularly, as many academics struggle to reconcile India's local knowledge and traditions with the international requirements of bodies like the WTO.
There are also hundreds of legal firms in India that specialize in intellectua property law.
Dr. Victoria Hansen Apollonio of CGIAR, which acts as the central advisory service on Intellectual property rights, Netherlands, stated the following at a Confederation of Indian Industry session on "IPR, Drug Filing & Other issues involved in developing biotechnology products":
"India would benefit by joining the Budapest treaty on IPRs to fulfill enablement/ deposit requirements of patent grants. It should also have a new legislative support for transfer of information to public. The innovations must be recorded to enable technology transfer to the public. Also, there should be a proper balance between the public and the private rights".
But local heroes are cut from a more populist fabric, which often appeals to farmers and the general public. Take....., for example. In an excellent piece entitled, "Biotech's Black Market", Douglas McGray tells the story of biotech Robin Hood D.B. Desai and his company Navbharat Seeds Limited. The controversy swirls around Desai's selling of a certain kind of cotton, which he calls Navbharat 151, that Monsanto accuses Desai of having stolen the copy for. Technically, Desai should be in the clear, as India lacked the property rights laws necessary for the criminalization of biotech copyright-infringement when Monsanto initiated its suit against him. But nothing is ever quite clear when Monsanto is the plaintiff.
Friday, October 4, 2002
BUCKLEY ON "HARDBALL"
In The American Story, Garet Garrett asks some questions Buckley might be wise to ask himself.
"How now, thou America, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are? Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world."
"Hardball," Oct. 3, 2002/from transcript of Chris Matthews interview of Buckley
MATTHEWS: Remember the United States Constitution and its
delegation to the U.S. Congress the right to declare war? I want
to read to you, Mr. Buckley, the language of this resolution, which
Dick Gephardt has bowed down to, which the president has
pparently dictated. The president wants the right quote “to defend
the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq.” If that isn’t the most broadest-it seems to
me and I’ll ask you in a rhetorical sense or interrogative sense,
isn’t that an extremely broad definition for presidential war making
authority given the fact that Congress should withhold the right to
declare war?
BUCKLEY: You’re absolutely right, but we’ve had 82 uses of the
military abroad in 200 years and only six of them were backed by
congressional action. So that it’s remarkable that we actually are
petitioning for congressional action. This is a stagy war and under
the circumstances we have to do that, but once again, Mr. Bush
himself says that his powers under the constitution transcend any
limitations that Congress might impose on him, so therefore the
argument over factual cogency is distracting.
MATTHEWS: What’s wrong with simply, since we have plenty of
time and this is sort an elective surgery in terms of foreign policy.
We’re deciding to do it. We’re setting the timetable ourselves as
a country. We’re doing it unilaterally it seems. What’s wrong with
using the constitution properly and having Congress declare war
on the government of Iraq?
BUCKLEY: Absolutely nothing. In my judgment, that’s what we
ought to be doing. You know, even if a man who invented the
doctrine of containment, George Cannon (ph), came out for
declaring war against Afghanistan in 1979, when they took-excuse
me, on Iran when they took our hostages, the declaration of war
is psychologically limited since the development of the atom
bomb, because the enunciation of that war suggests that the
unlimited uses of our power are relevant and we shudder at the
thought of that. But as a formal matter, I agree with you completely.
We should declare war against Iraq and that that would be the
wholesome way to proceed.
Friday, October 4, 2002
DEVELOPMENTS IN THEORETICAL INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE DEBATE OVER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND "PLAINTIFF'S DIPLOMACY"
As human rights violations have taken an increasing prominence in international law during the last decade, the extent to which state governments tend to be the most powerful and continuous violators of human rights raises serious questions about jurisdiction-- a government is unlikely to award remedies to its own citizens for rights violated by the government itself.
Anne-Marie Slaughter and David Bosco discuss the novel trends in foreign policy influenced by the rise of "plaintiff's diplomacy". According to Slaughter and Bosco, there are three categories of actions that fall under this rubric:
"The first category consists of suits against individuals for grave violations of international law committed in the name of governments. These suits have the salutary effect of opening U.S. courts to foreign victims of abuse and educating American judges about global norms of human rights law....Suits against corporations for violations of international law fall into a second category, one more likely to complicate diplomatic relations and generate pressure on governments from powerful corporate interests. Such suits are an inevitable corollary to the rising power of both civic groups and corporations in world affairs....The third category of litigation is even more troubling. These are suits against foreign governments authorized and encouraged by Congress and filed in an effort to achieve justice for victims of terrorism and oppression."
Friday, October 4, 2002
THE LAST OF THE HARD-CORE TROUBADOURS
David Morris thinks Bush is bluffing about the war on Iraq. I particularly appreciate his refusal to believe Bush is "insane" enough to wage war unilaterally in Iraq.
October 3, 2002
A PAEAN TO TOM WAITS AND LIFE ON THE TRACKS BECAUSE IT'S LATE AND THE NIGHT WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE AND ALL THESE CAPITAL LETTERS FEEL LIKE CAPITAL CRIMES
Slept all night in a Cedar grove
I was born to ramble
born to rove
Some men are searchin for the
Holy Grail
but there ain't nothin sweeter
than ridin the rails
And another one of my favorites-- this one about where you end up if you get addicted to the movement.
There's no prayer like desire
There's amnesia in her kiss
She's a swan and a pistol
and she will follow you like this
Disgruntled by war and the nasty economy? Looking for a change of scene or even a change of planet? Have no fear-- thanks to the market, you can find a utopia perfectly suited to your innermost needs and idiosyncrasies.
Take Laissez Faire City, for example, described as "a sovereign international city domiciled in cyberspace". But half the fun of being a utopian is deciding what exactly constitutes your ideal society-- from constraints to punishments to laws to conflict resolution. The libertarians at Galt's Gulch take the theorizing seriously enough to devote discussion groups to it. New Utopia goes further-- it actually exists, basing its structure on that of Monaco. I bet the citizens of Monaco would be surprised to hear that they inspired utopian copy-cats.
As for me, however, I prefer my utopias less set-in-stone and more fanciful. I like my utopias as I like my loves-- imperfect, honest, and wild as they come.
Thursday, October 3, 2002
LOOKING A WINGED HORSE IN THE MOUTH
Found out why the bill outlawing internet gambling whistled through the House this week. Apparently, the grease had something to do with the fact that the House Banking Committee was involved. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) added an amendment which passed overwhelmingly on a voice vote, and a show of hands, providing that the prohibition contained in the bill applies only "where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made". The Banking Committee bill, HR 4419, deals only with the role of financial institutions and financial instruments involved in Internet gambling.
According to the House Committee on Financial Services, the final version of the bill was approved "unanimously". When I called their office at (202) 226-0471, I was informed that the vote was indeed unanimous, but that only 20 Congressmen were present for the vote and their names did not go on record because it was held to a "voice vote". Slick, smooth, or just plain greasy-- all the adjectives apply.
The House Committee on Financial Services described HR 556, or the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act of 2001", as follows:
"H.R. 556, the Leach-LaFalce Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, would bar Internet gambling sites access to the U.S. financial services system. The legislation would ban Internet gambling sites from using credit cards, wire transfers, or any other bank instrument to fund gaming transactions."
Robyn Weisman, writing for Newsfactor, offers this insight on it:
The bill does not make any specific mention of stolen credit cards or bank accounts being used in the propagation of illegal gambling. It does, however, hold banks responsible if they have "actual knowledge" of any violations relating to this legislation and prohibits anyone "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" to "knowingly accept" any monies connected to "the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling."
Now I must say, with a resignated sigh, that yes, the war on terrorism did help HR 556 pass. The bill failed when it was first introduced in Feb. 2001 by its sponsor, Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa). What pushed it through this time was Congress' post-Sept. 11th attack on "money-laundering".
Rep. Leach asserted to news sources that "Internet gambling is the single easiest way to launder money. Illegal actors are being given the credit cards of American citizens" to perpetuate such acts.
Thursday, October 3, 2002
THE AMERICAN INTELLIGENTSIA ISN'T EXACTLY ADMIRED BY MOST US CITIZENS...
But is it fair to proclaim the "obsolescence of the American intellectual", as John Lukacs does in The Chronicle of Higher Education? (For some background on the latest configurations of this debate within the conservative movment, Richard Posner's book surmising the decline of public intelletcuals can be perused online.) However, this oft-lamented decline disguises deeper currents relating the change in the status of the public intellectual to his decline.
There is no question that American public intellectuals played a crucial role in marketing competing versions of "the American ideal". The popular or academic acceptance of one justification over another for this ideal cetainly affected the extent to which government shaped policies in some arenas. The American Social Gospel Movement, the anti-communist ideology underpinning the Cold War, the rise of "American exceptionalism",as best described by Seymour Martin Lipset in American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, as well as the more recent Clinton-Albright characterization of the US as "the indispenable nation".
In Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, the distancing of American academia from more pedestrian public concerns raised the question of "culture wars", which broke down into a more essential battle over the ability of a far-flung academic elite to understand, predict, or prescribe mass American culture. Bruce J. Schulman believes Americans regard intellectuals with "scorn"; he points to the incessant attempts to drag public figures through the dirt as a major source of delegitimization.
I cast my vote with Umberto Eco and his friends at the Liberal Art Mafia who note that: "leftists in American academia are more concerned with the language of power than with the unacademic concern of altering power". Or maybe it is easier, once you taste a little power-- once that human-all-too-human appetite is whet-- to refuse to relinquish it under the argument that you will know how to use it best. Ah, hubris.
Thursday, October 3, 2002
WHY DID SCHROEDER WIN THE GERMAN ELECTIONS?
Srdja Trifkovic has an answer. The World Press Reviewagrees. Even more importantly however,a German friend/foe named Frank sent me the following after our brief chat on the German election results:
SPIEGEL ONLINE
27.09.2002
US-Eliteunis: Antisemitismus-Streit schlägt hohe Wellen
Eine hitzige Debatte um die amerikanische Israel-Politik polarisiert
die akademische Gemeinschaft an US-Universitäten. Harvard-Präsident
Larry Summers hat Israel-Kritikern in einer schroffen Rede
"Antisemitismus" vorgeworfen, doch die empören sich über "Verleumdung
und Zensur".
Von Cornelia Stolze
Frank mentioned that the same tactic was used to exert pressure on South Africa
in the 70's. Indeed, these are heavy charges because words like "racism" and "anti-semitism" leave stains that are not easily erased.
Thursday, October 3, 2002
ANOTHER REASON TO MOVE TO THE NETHERLANDS?
Might a philosopher be the next head of the Dutch government? Looks like it. If I could elect my own philospher-king, he would definitely be inclined to
unravel sexuality like this,
interpret law like this,
think about war like this, style his hair like this, struggle with meaning like this, and write like this.
Thursday, October 3, 2002
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES IN AMERICA?
Bruce Bartlett's apologia for supporting the World Bank and the IMF fails to impress a principled conservative. First, The National Review embraces war for the assumed public good. Then it begins defending international financial institutions lacking any internal systems of accountability. I'm not sure what to expect next. I just know that it seems increasingly absurd to call it "conservativism".
Thursday, October 3, 2002
EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAMBLE ON THE NET, YOU SHOULD GAMBLE A LITTLE BIT NOW. SO YOU CAN TELL YOUR GRANDCHILDREN.
The House passed the internet gambling bill as media attention refused to stray from the more scandalous politics of the day. I think there would have been alot more protest to the passage of this bill if the government were not trying to do so many egregious things all at once.
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
A MOTHER WHOSE SON IS PREPARING TO FIGHT IN IRAQ
As we sat in a beautiful Southern kitchen, dressed with fresh magnolia flowers from her front yard, Ann, face drawn, eyes wide, told me that her son Lewis will be shipped to Iraq in less than a month. At the moment, Lewis is at 29 Palms in California, joined by almost every American Marine west of the Mississippi, getting "climatised" for the desert atmosphere in which they will soon be fighting. (US Marines are also currently training in the desert-like atmosphere of Djibouti.)
For Lewis, war is just a matter of time. Ann says that Lewis is required to have his bag packed by the door at all times, in case duty calls. Apparently, the consensus among the military brass is that the marines won't finish their three-week training at 29 Palms before they get shipped off.
Ann's face falls when I ask her how she is coping. She looks up at me, looks me directly in the eye, and replies, "I am praying". Ann's husband, Lee, says that they never imagined Lewis would have to fight in a war. Whe he joined the Marines, it was supposed to be a temporary plan, and war clouds loomed nowhere on the horizon.
At this point, I am not sure what to say. Lewis and his parents are all voting Democrats, but at this point, the electoral system of democracy fails them. There is nothing they can do. They love their son. And there is nothing Lewis can do besides learn to kill, unless he wants to be a traitor, subject to court martial. Ann says that Lewis searches for moral justifications to continue acting in a stoic manner.
Lately, he has taken to reading the Bible, underlining verses that provide a justification for killing. A strong Baptist Christian, Lewis wants to be sure that what he is about to do will not prevent him from going to heaven. I wonder how many young men are thumbing through Bibles right now looking for a way to wage this war for something less disgusting than power-- something good and eternal, like God.
