A generic clindamycin gel doctor will consider all possible treatment options when discussing outlook buy cheap synthroid and forming an overall care plan. In some cases, a buy estrace online factor or condition could prevent your doctor from prescribing Cymbalta purchase cheap diovan without prescription india due to the risk of harm. Males, people who are order cheap lumigan work pregnant, and people who use urinary catheters are among those gentamicin eye drops online stores at higher risk of developing complicated UTIs. People may need metronidazole gel online to seek care at specialized treatment facilities, and proton therapy compare cialis prices online may not be available to everyone. Despite having unknown origins, discount estrace no rx psoriasis behind the knee can flare up or worsen due buy free ampicillin to certain triggers. Unithroid is approved to suppress (lower) thyroid-stimulating discount glucophage without prescription hormone (TSH) levels in adults and children of any age synthroid sale with a certain type of thyroid cancer. The International Society for.

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.