In low cost viagra people with ROC, taking maintenance PARP inhibitors showed improvement in purchase acomplia overnight delivery progression-free survival. However, experts believe these effects may result from purchase generic prednisolone prescription delivery differences between people who drink moderately and those who do flagyl online stores not. Lactase nonpersistence, in which the body makes less lactase order atrovent after infancy, is the most common cause of low lactase sale (metacam) levels. Besides learning about how Cimzia may affect your reproductive ampicillin without a prescription health, you may want other information about Cimzia. Depending on lowest price viagra the cause, the condition may come on suddenly or gradually methotrexate sale and may be temporary or permanent. During the second appointment, cheap lasix a doctor will look to see how the body has clozapine sale responded to the injected tuberculin. If people wish to get a.

That is thee title of a superb column by Pamela Samuelson explaining some (but only some) of the worries about the proposed settlement of copyright infringement claims against Google for scanning copyrighted works. She explains the perverse incentives to both parties to this litigation. In a word, each realized that they could become literary monopolists if they played their cards right with each other.

That is exactly the reason why the federal judiciary gets involved in settlements that private parties have negotiated with each other in class action cases. There is too much risk that the parties will find a way to divide the pie between themselves in a way that does not serve the public well.

And, of course, the public would gain much from the settlement. Advocates for the disabled are urging the judge to approve it because it would expand access to works that can be mechanically vocalized. And so it would, at a huge cost o competition, openness, privacy, and various other pitfalls.

It may not matter, if the Department of Justice decides the settlement has serious anti-trust implications, as it certainly seems to. (You can read the DOJ’s curt letter to Google at that site, thanks to DocStoc.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 2:51 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.