Treatment cheapest cialis price focuses on getting a person somewhere safe and addressing the order cephalexin underlying cause through therapy or medication. Amjevita is given as zyprexa prescription a subcutaneous injection by a healthcare professional in their office viagra order or clinic. The actual price you'll pay depends on your zithromax online review insurance plan, your location, and the pharmacy you use. Additionally, no rx lumigan the symptoms of schizophrenia can be subtle or intermittent, making cialis online cheap it challenging to recognize and diagnose the condition. Treatment to cheapest aldactone manage bone loss can entail taking bisphosphonates or RANKL inhibitors, atrovent without prescription both of which may strengthen the bones. However, a person buy cheapest serevent alternative should always consult the doctor before trying supplements because some order generic viagra may interfere with certain cancer treatments. CRISPR gene editing can lumigan for sale eliminate mutated genes in the DNA and replace them with nonmutated.

The discussions about how the Google Book settlement proposes to handle orphan works have expanded. A small group of which I am a member have formally sought to intervene. So has the Internet Archive. Today the NYT Bits Blog has a brief explanation, and some good commentary.

There have also been three articles that take up the settlement in a more serious way:

Randy Picker, “The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-works Monopoly?” Picker is an anti-trust lawyer. It’s a longish paper (though not by law review standards), but the first few pages provide a good summary.

Pamela Samuelson: “Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Book Settlement.” An excellent, clear, short critique of the settlement. Easy to read for the layperson, highly recommended. This will be Samuelson’s column in the July issue of the Communications of the ACM.

James Grimmelmann, “The Google Book Settlement: Ends, Means, and the Future of Books” (pdf, 17 pages). An issues brief, thoughtful and analytical and complete.

I urge anyone interested to read the Samuelson piece in particular.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 at 11:06 pm and is filed under Open Access, Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.