However, buy cheap xalatan online they cautioned that there is little research into how people generic cialis online actually consume the portions. To learn more about using Botox tablet xalatan for these conditions, see the "Botox for chronic migraine" and order discount griseofulvin "Botox for other uses" sections below. Verbal aggression may also lipitor no rx required harm toddlers, who are too young to understand why their buying gel caregivers are unhappy with them. CVT, also known as cerebral discount diclofenac venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), occurs when a blood clot develops buy cheap asacol online in a cerebral vein. The lymphatic system is a network robaxin in malaysia of vessels, ducts, and nodes that passes through most bodily buy atarax online tissues, meaning cancer can quickly spread if it enters this fda approved cialis system. If you have trouble opening medication bottles, ask your pharmacist.

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.