Re: [802SEC] July opening SEC agenda is attached--please review
There have also been reports to Standards Board Committees on a related
The Veeck case revolves around a claim that any standard that is referenced
in any law becomes part of the law and must be made available to the
general public free of charge.
Fifth Circuit has ruled that even though the SDOs retain the copyright, the
standard is, in fact, part of the law and must be freely available.
Supreme Court has asked the US Solicitor General for a brief. There are
mixed feelings in government. A brief was expected by the end of May.
My understanding is that this is likely to go to the Supreme Court because
the current situation is that our copyright protection (as a result of this
case) now varies by district.
My personal opinion (and I am most certainly NOT a lawyer) is that this
case is bogus. I believe this is a case of government appropriation of
private property (the royalty/revenue stream associated with the copyright)
without just compensation. This sounds like misapplication of eminent
domain to me. I don't see any difference in a government entity taking my
intellectual work to include in a law than their taking my back yard to be
a public access to a park.
Anyway, there is a lot of thrash here.
At 02:17 PM 6/27/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>The allocated amounts of time, I believe, are insufficient for lines:
>One of these items is "Funding Model Task Force update" (J. Carlo, 2 minutes).
>I agree that I'd like more time to hear this.
>I read an item today (see below) that resonates with this issue. It is a
>possible governmental action that would seriously impact IEEE's financial
>model in technical publishing (though not in standards). The related web
>site <http://www.plos.org> says:
>>The current manner in which science is published places the interests of
>>publishers before those of the public. This closed system of scientific
>>publication greatly diminishes the value of public investment (over $50
>>billion dollars per year invested by US taxpayers alone) in scientific
>>and medical research.
>The idea of the item below is that the government wants the work it paid
>for to be readily available. I think that many standards developers feel
>the same way.
>>3. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SCIENCE: WITH LIBERTY AND RESEARCH FOR ALL.
>>On Wednesday, Rep. Martin O. Sabo (D-MN) released a draft of the Public
>>Access to Science Act, which will eliminate copyright protection for
>>publications stemming from federally funded research. The laudable goal
>>of this measure is to make research easily accessible via the
>>internet. Sabo's move appears to further the goals of the Public Library
>>of Science (PLoS), chaired by Harold Varmus, a group that wants to see
>>scientific publishing move away from the subscription-based economics,
>>which they claim limit the availability of the research. PLoS will
>>release its first "open-access" journal, PLoS Biology, in October, and
>>plans to release PLoS Medicine next year.
>>THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY. Opinions
>>are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University or the
>>American Physical Society, but they should be.
>>Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN