According to Intellectual Property Watch:
A bipartisan group of 42 of the 100 United States senators sent a letter to US negotiators in global climate talks in Barcelona this week urging the protection of intellectual property rights over any technologies developed to address climate change. In the 2 November letter, available here [pdf], they cautioned against allowing developing countries to obtain technologies to address climate problems without recognising intellectual property rights, which grant a monopoly to their owners.
They must have missed my last post on the Copenhagen treaty:
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
The senators argue that intellectual property rights are an incentive for companies to do research and innovate, but the "transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries" section doesn’t seem to be concerned with intellectual property. It’s all about saving the planet if you hadn’t heard. If some companies have to suffer to achieve that goal then so be it.
Let’s see how well that works out.
I got a form in the mail the other day to renew my dog’s licence from the city of Waterloo, Canada. It contained this note:
Failure to purchase a 2010 dog license prior to March 1, 2010 may result in a $125.00 fine plus a $30.00 victim surcharge fee.
Now forget the fact that a $125 fine is ridiculous for failing to purchase a dog licence, but Waterloo is desperate for cash so I guess that’s just a given. And I can understand a victim surcharge fee for a criminal violation where there is an actual victim. But if I don’t buy a dog licence, who is the victim? My dog?
When exactly did victim surcharges start being levied on bylaw infractions? Where does this money go, and how is it redistributed?I’d like to see an actual accounting of that.
And if my dog is the victim here, when can he expect to receive his check?
I gave a presentation the morning for Communitech’s Senior Sales and Business Development Peer2Peer group. The presentation was geared for that audience, with concrete examples of sales generated using social media. Though I haven’t presented on that topic before, the presentation went quite well, with some excellent discussion throughout.
You can find the presentation here.
I went to The Globe and Mail newspaper’s website this morning to get the number for the circulation department to ask about my missing New York Times (yes I still read a newspaper). While I couldn’t find it, I did locate the main number. However, just as I was about to read it and dial, a pop up ad, I believe for ScotiaBank, appeared, obscuring the number completely.No close button, so I was forced to wait until the ad decided on its own to disappear before I could get the number.
Note to marketers: If your ad keeps me from doing what I am trying to do, I promise I will remember the ad. And not in a good way. And I will tell everyone I know about it too.And you won’t get my business either.
Note to The Globe and Mail: Put the number for your circulation department on your web page somewhere it can be easily found. It isn’t even on the "Contact Us" page.I might actually want to buy something from you.