I found the following posted on the Fish-Ecology list.  Not usually a
source of much that would interest RESADM or NCURASE, but since there
weere discussion of WIPO at this weeks NCURA meeting i thought some
of you might find this interesting.  It at least shows that the
scientific research community is aware.

 Richard H. Moore
Assistant Vice President for Grants and Sponsored Research
 and Professor of Biology

Coastal Carolina University     E-MAIL: xxxxxx@coastal.edu
P.O. Box 261954                 VOICE: (803) 349-2050
Conway SC 29528-6054            FAX: (803) 349-2726

===================================================================
Date:    Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:13:26 GMT
From:    Aldo-Pier Solari <xxxxxx@CICEI.ULPGC.ES>
Subject: New copyright issues/Public domain DATABASES

Access to public domain and other public data bases may be  blocked.
Perhaps,  the  script  below may be of interest to the FE-community.
Cheer, APS/lstownr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leonard Krishtalka <xxxxxx@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty

Following is additional information  on  the proposed WIPO treaty on
the copyright of data in databases.  There is serious concern  about
the  impact  of  this on scientific databases as is evident from the
letter from  the  US  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  below.  This
position paper is a quick introduction to concerns about the  treaty
and has pointers to other sources of information.

 Krishtalka

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from xxxxxx@tap.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES
October 29, 1996

 A Primer On The Proposed WIPO Treaty On
 Database Extraction Rights
 That Will Be Considered In December 1996*

 October 29, 1996

 James Love
 Consumer Project on Technology
 http://www.essential.org/cpt
 email: xxxxxx@tap.org

 *HTML  version  at http://www.essential.org/cpt/ip/cpt-dbcom.html
 Ascii version formatted with 11  pt courier with 1 inch margins.
 This is my first take on the  treaty,  and  I  would  appreciate
 comments  and corrections.  This is a very important matter that
 hasn't received much attention.  jl

 INTRODUCTION

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will consider in
December  1996  a  new  treaty  that  would  require  most countries
(including the United  States)  to  severely  curtail  the  public's
rights  to  use  pubic  domain materials stored in "databases." Some
experts say it is  the  "least  balanced  and most potentially anti-
competitive intellectual property rights  ever  created."  The  U.S.
Patent  and  Trademark  Office (PTO) is accepting public comments on
this treaty, and a digital  copyright treaty that is also troubling.
Comments are due by November 22,  1996,  and  can  be  submitted  by
electronic  mail  to:  xxxxxx@uspto.gov.   Copies  of the treaty,
commentary, and the PTO  federal  register  notice is available from
http://www.public-domain.org.  This memorandum  provides  background
information on the treaty and the problems it presents.

BACKGROUND

The  database  treaty is being pushed by large publishing companies,
in response  to  the  1991  U.S.   Supreme  Court  decision in Feist
Publications,     Inc.      v.     Rural     Telephone      Service,
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/classics/499_340v.htm].  In Feist,
the  Court  rejected  a claim of copyright for data from a telephone
directory's white pages,  saying  that  facts cannot be copyrighted,
and that  obvious  items  such  as  listing  names,  addresses,  and
telephone  numbers  in  alphabetical  order,  are  not  sufficiently
creative to qualify for copyright protection.  The decision rejected
the "sweat of the brow" theory of copyright.

Compilations  of  data  or  documents,  including materials from the
public domain, can receive protection under copyright if the creator
of  the  compilation  can  show  originality  in  the  selection and
arrangement of the data.   Comprehensive  databases,  which  can  be
expensive  to create, confront problems under copyright laws because
(almost by  definition)  they  are  not  original  in  terms  of the
selection of the materials.

Electronic database publishers have sought  to  protect  their  data
through contracts with their customers.  These contracts often place
restrictive  conditions on the reuse or redissemination of the data.
See Pam Samuelson, "Legally  Speaking: Legal Protection For Database
Contents,"   39   Communications   of   the   ACM   (Nov.     1996),
http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/datacon.html,  for  a discussion about
this approach.   In  other  cases,  database  vendors  permit online
searching, but do not distribute the complete database itself.

Publishers are looking for stronger  protection,  and  are  lobbying
hard  to  obtain  a  new  "sui generis" (this is Latin for "one of a
kind," and is a  term  used  to describe statutory protections which
are not defined under patent, copyright or trademark laws)  property
right  to  protect the contents of databases.  The publishers' first
success was the adoption  of  a  controversial proposal for database
extraction rights in the European Union (EU),  and  by  gaining  the
support  of  the Clinton Administration and the EU to propose a very
similar measure as an  amendment  to the Berne Copyright Convention.
The Clinton Administration also supported  domestic  legislation  to
implement this form of data use regulation in the 104th Congress [HR
3531], but there were no hearings on the measure.

Despite  the  controversial  and far reaching nature of the database
protection proposal and the lack of  discussion on its impact in the
United States,  the  Clinton  Administration  is  asking  for  quick
approval of the database treaty at a December 1996 meeting in Geneva
hosted  by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  The
main Administration advocate in  support of the publishers' position
is Bruce Lehman, Chair of the Patent and Trademark Office  (PTO),  a
person widely considered an intellectual property rights zealot.

THE  COMPLEXITIES (AND DANGERS) IN CREATING A NEW PROPERTY RIGHT FOR
DATA

While many persons are  sympathetic  to  the  general  idea of a sui
generis form of protection for databases, there is enormous  concern
about the complexities of creating a new property right that has the
potential  to  create  private monopolies on data and documents that
have traditionally been in the public domain.  It is often said that
"the devil is in the  details,"  and  this is certainly true for the
database protection proposal.  A handful of  database  vendors  have
quietly  crafted  a proposed treaty and law that creates a nightmare
for researchers  and  value  added  publishers.   In  discussing the
development of the EU database proposal, J. H. Reichman  and  Pamela
Samuelson  say  that "lobbying pressures converted the final version
into one of the least balanced and most potentially anti-competitive
intellectual property rights  ever  created." [Intellectual Property
Rights In Data: An Assault  On  The  Worldwide  Public  Interest  In
Research  And Development, forthcoming in Vanderbilt Law Review, 50,
on the Web at http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/reisamda.html].

The database vendors have  sought  to  vastly  expand the ability of
database owners to regulate and restrict the public's rights to  use
data,  without  the types of safeguards which exist in copyright law
today.  In this respect,  it  is  important  to understand that as a
"sui generis" property right, the database extraction rights are not
part of the of the copyright regime, and the entire doctrine of fair
use of data will not apply to  data  protected  under  the  proposed
database  extraction rights treaty and legislation.  Moreover, under
the WIPO  proposal  these  new  data  rights  would  be retroactive,
affecting countless databases already in existence.

DIGRESSION ON WEST PUBLISHING AND THE DEFINITION OF A DATABASE

The Feist decision was particularly troubling for West Publishing, a
company that wants to maintain its monopoly  on  the  citations  and
corrected       text       for       many      court      decisions.
[http://essential.org/cpt/legalinfo/legalinfo.html West  is the only
comprehensive  publisher  of  federal  circuit  and  district  court
opinions and state court opinions from  all  50  states.   The  page
numbers  of the West court reporters are the basis for authoritative
citations used by scholars and lawyers.  As a reporter of decisions,
West also makes corrections to the text of court opinions, typically
after working with the judge  who  wrote the opinion.  West wants to
prevent others from using their page numbers or the  corrected  text
of  court  opinions,  and it is often in court trying to prevent its
would be competitors from doing so.

West is now involved in at  least  two law suits over its assertions
of copyright of the page numbers, and one law suit over the issue of
the copyright to the text of the  corrected  court  opinions.   [See
http://www.hyperlaw.com  for  background  on  this].  Most copyright
experts think that West will lose its court case on the issue of its
page numbers, and West will  also  be  hard  pressed to claim it can
copyright  the  corrections  to  the  text  of  court  opinions   --
particularly  for  the US federal courts, since U.S.  copyright laws
exclude the works of federal employees.

Most people think that the corrected text of court opinions, and the
citations to those opinions,  should  be  in  the public domain, and
that  the  West  monopoly  has  delayed  the  development   of   new
information  products  and  services  for legal researchers.  No one
seriously argues that  the  court  opinions  would  not be published
without  a  West  monopoly.   West  is  among  the  private   sector
publishers  who  have  successfully  lobbied  the EU and the Clinton
Administration to extend the  database protection proposals to print
products by defining a database so broadly that it will include  any
collection of facts, data, or documents regardless of the media.  If
the database protection proposals are enacted, West will have a firm
monopoly  on  decades  of  judicial  citations  and  corrections  to
judicial opinions.

THE DATABASE EXTRACTION RIGHTS PROPOSAL

The  August  30, 1996 version of the WIPO treaty is available on the
Web  at  http://www.loc.gov/copyright/wipo6.html,  and  it  is worth
reading since it represents the most radical change in  intellectual
property rights in data, ever.

WHAT IS A DATABASE?  WHAT ISN'T A DATABASE?

The treaty would protect "any database that represents a substantial
investment  in  the collection, assembly, verification, organization
or presentation of the contents  of  the database." This term should
be understood  "to  include  collections  of  literary,  musical  or
audiovisual  works  or  any  other  kind of works, or collections of
other materials such as  texts,  sounds,  images, numbers, facts, or
data representing any other matter or substance"  and  "may  contain
collections  of  expressions  of folklore." The "protection shall be
granted to databases irrespective  of  the  form  or medium in which
they  are  embodied.   Protection  extends  to  databases  in   both
electronic and non-electronic form" and "embraces all forms or media
now  known  or later developed.  . .  Protection shall be granted to
databases regardless  of  whether  they  are  made  available to the
public.  This means that databases that are made generally available
to the public, commercially or otherwise, as well as databases  that
remain   within  the  exclusive  possession  and  control  of  their
developers enjoy protection on the same footing."

In other words, a lot of water will go under this bridge.

WHAT ARE EXTRACTION AND UTILIZATION RIGHTS?

"The maker of a database  eligible  for protection under this Treaty
shall have the right to authorize  or  prohibit  the  extraction  or
utilization  of  its contents." What is "extraction"?  Extraction is
defined as,  "the  permanent  or  temporary  transfer  of  all  or a
substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium  by
any  means  or  in  any  form." "Extraction .  . .  is a synonym for
`copying' or `reproduction' .   .  .   by  `any means' or `any form'
that is now known or later developed."

"Utilization" is defined as "making available to the public all or a
substantial part of  the  contents  of  a  database  by  any  means,
including  by  the distribution of copies, by renting, or by on-line
or other forms of transmission,"  including the right to control the
use of the data "at a time individually chosen by each member of the
public."

WHAT IS A "SUBSTANTIAL PART" OF THE DATABASE?

The treaty sets out  tests  for  determining  if  an  extraction  is
"substantial,"  and these tests are both highly anticompetitive, and
extremely broad in scope.

The "substantiality"  of  a  portion  of  the  database  is assessed
against the "value of the database," and considers "qualitative  and
quantitative aspects," noting that "neither aspect is more important
than the other.  . .  This assessment may also take into account the
diminution  in  market  value  that  may  result from the use of the
portion,  including  the  added  risk  that  the  investment  in the
database will not be recoverable.  It may even include an assessment
of whether a  new  product  using  the  portion  could  serve  as  a
commercial  substitute  for the original, diminishing the market for
the original."

Then the treaty adds that a  "substantial part" means any portion of
the database, "including an accumulation of small portions  .   .  .
In  practice,  repeated  or  systematic use of small portions of the
contents of a database  may  have  the  same effect as extraction or
utilization of a large, or substantial, part of the contents of  the
database."

In  the US implementing legislation, the only types of data use that
would  not  be  regulated  would  be  "insubstantial"  parts, "whose
extraction, use  or  reuse  does  not  diminish  the  value  of  the
database,  conflict  with  a  normal exploitation of the database or
adversely affect the actual  or  potential market for the database."
Under this language, a database owner could say that it might in the
future want to charge for each transmission of a fact or an  element
of  a database as part of its "normal exploitation" of the database.
With the Internet and digital cash  this claim is likely to be made.
The public would not have "fair use" rights, since fair use is  only
defined in matters involving copyright.

FOR HOW LONG?  15 YEARS, 25 YEARS, OR FOREVER?

The  Treaty  would require a minimum term of protection (15 years in
the EU proposal,  and  25  in  the  United  States proposal) for the
database.  But this is extended each time the database is revised or
enhanced.  According to the draft treaty, "any substantial change to
the database, evaluated qualitatively or  quantitatively,  including
any substantial change resulting from the accumulation of successive
additions,  deletions,  verifications, modifications in organization
or  presentation,  or  other  alterations,  which  constitute  a new
substantial investment, shall qualify the  database  resulting  from
such investment for its own term of protection."

The  provision  on  revisions raises the specter that protection for
many databases will be perpetual.  This  could indeed be the case if
the original versions of the database are  only  "licensed"  by  the
vendor  for  a  limited  period  of time, so that the only available
versions would be the  new  ones,  which  would  have  a new term of
protection.  [Database vendors write these restricted  use  licenses
now].

WHO WILL "OWN"  FACTS?

The  supporters  of  the  Treaty note that persons can independently
collect data for  a  rival  database,  and  the  US legislation says
"nothing in this Act shall in  any  way  restrict  any  person  from
independently  collecting,  assembling  or  compiling works, data or
materials from sources other than  a  database subject to this Act."
Unfortunately, this will only be helpful in those cases where  there
will be a separate non-protected source for the data or documents.

If  the entity which creates the initial data or documents qualifies
for  the  database  extraction  right,   the  data  itself  will  be
monopolized.  The example given above regarding the West  Publishing
reporters  of  court  decisions  is one example, where the citations
(which are based upon the West  page numbers) and the corrections to
opinions (which are only reported by West) cannot be  obtained  from
any  third  parties.   But  the  problem  is much broader than court
opinions.  All sorts of data  will  be protected at the source under
the database treaty, and may never enter the public domain.

There are also the practical  problems  relating  to  the  costs  of
independent   data   collection.   The  telephone  companies  obtain
directory information  when  you  become  a  subscriber,  and  it is
practically  impossible  to   independently   collect   this   data.
Databases  of  IP  addressees collected by Network Solutions will be
covered, giving Network Solutions broad  new rights in how that data
is utilized by ISPs.

WHAT ABOUT GOVERNMENT INFORMATION?

Much of the lobbying  for  the  sui  generis  database  proposal  is
designed  to  enable  database  vendors  to  protect  collections of
government documents.  The  treaty  would  permit  countries to have
special rules for "databases made by governmental entities or  their
agents or employees." However, this exemption will not include cases
such as the West Publishing reporting of court decisions, where West
is acting as an unofficial agent for the courts.

In  the  US  enabling  legislation,  protection  is  not  given to a
database made by a governmental  entity, but protection could not be
excluded from companies if a database's "contents have been obtained
from a  governmental  entity."  There  is  no  provision  to  exempt
databases   created  by  private  parties;  like  West,  LEXIS,  and
literally thousands of other firms;  when they act as contractors to
government agencies.  For example, West is  a  contractor  for  some
courts  in  receiving  electronic  filing of briefs.  Under the U.S.
legislation, the database of briefs collected by West for the Courts
would be  protected.   Likewise,  the  SEC  EDGAR  public disclosure
filings which are managed by LEXIS would be covered.

The Clinton Administration has gone to court in at least  two  cases
avoid  releasing  documents  under  the  Freedom  of Information Act
(FOIA)  when  West  Publishing  has  asserted  intellectual property
rights claims to elements of the  data.   In  the  FLITE  case,  the
Clinton  administration  successfully argued that it did not have to
release U.S.  Court opinions  collected  by  the Air Force at public
expense that contained West "corrections" and  enhancements.   (See:
http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/0185.html,   and
the Tax Analysts page on this topic, at http://www.tax.org/pal).  It
appears  as  though  government  entities will be permitted to avoid
FOIA completely if they use private contractors, and write contracts
which permit agency access to  data  (extraction), but do not permit
disclosure  to  the  public.   [For  a  discussion  of  an   earlier
legislative  initiative  by  West  Publishing  to  achieve a similar
result,   that   was   defeated   after   citizen   protests,   see:
http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/0137.html,   and
http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/0139.html]

WHAT ABOUT FAIR USE RIGHTS?

As noted several  times,  the  public  has  rights,  often taken for
granted, under the copyright "fair  use"  doctrine.   This  includes
commercial  and non-commercial fair use.  The fair use rules involve
public interest balancing tests.   The sui generis database proposal
doesn't include or  incorporate  public  fair  use  rights.   It  is
difficult to know how this will play out in practice.

Under  the  treaty  language,  governments  "may,  in their national
legislation, provide  exceptions  to  or  limitations  of the rights
provided in this  Treaty  in  certain  special  cases  that  do  not
conflict  with  the  normal  exploitation of the database and do not
unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder."
The key terms here  are  "normal  exploitation of the database," and
"legitimate interests" of the rightholder.

In the  U.S.   legislation,  "a  lawful  user  of  a  database  made
available  to  the  public  or  placed  in  commercial  use  is  not
prohibited  from extracting, using or reusing insubstantial parts of
its contents,  qualitatively  or  quantitatively,  for  any purposes
whatsoever." But as  noted  earlier,  the  term  "insubstantial"  is
constrained  by  the  scope  of  the business opportunities that are
perceived by  the  database  vendor.   Not  only  is "insubstantial"
limited to those uses  which  do  not  diminish  the  value  of  the
database,  but  insubstantial  must also not "conflict with a normal
exploitation" of the database,  or  adversely  impact the "actual or
potential"  market  of  the   database.    Moreover,   the   "normal
exploitation" of the database seems to be defined in such a way that
the  vendor  can assert that a transmission of a database element on
the Internet would be an infringement if the company has a mechanism
or  even  aspirations  to  charge   for  the  information,  and  the
cumulative impact of many  small  transactions  would  diminish  the
value of that service.

RETROACTIVE PROTECTION

The   treaty   would   require   countries   to  provide  protection
prospectively for databases already  on the market.  Countries could
exempt older databases from protection for up to two years.

PROHIBITIONS ON TECHNOLOGIES TO DEFEAT PROTECTION

As in the proposed Internet copyright treaty  and  legislation,  the
database proposal is accompanied by very strict prohibitions against
the   "importation,   manufacture  or  distribution  of  protection-
defeating devices."  This  is  defined  as  "any  device, product or
component incorporated into a device or product, the primary purpose
or primary effect of which is to circumvent any process,  treatment,
mechanism  or  system  that  prevents  or  inhibits  any of the acts
covered  by  the  rights  under  this  Treaty."  The  US legislation
contains similar provisions, plus a whole section which  would  make
it   a   federal   crime  to  interfere  with  "database  management
information." Persons  would  face  up  to  5  years  in  jail and a
$500,000 file for doing such things as  providing  or  disseminating
false  database  management information, or removing or altering any
such information.  It would seem that simply tearing the cover off a
telephone  book  (a  protected  database  under  the  treaty)  be  a
violation of this provision.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you think this  proposal  needs  more  debate before it is forced
upon us and the rest of the world, contact your member  of  Congress
and  submit  comments  to the PTO asking that the database treaty be
taken off the WIPO agenda  for  this December.  You should point out
that there have been zero public hearings  before  the  Congress  on
this  far-reaching  proposal.   You  also  might  read  the attached
October 9, 1996 letter in opposition to the treaty by the Presidents
of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  the  National  Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.  You will also find good
background materials  at  Brian  Kahin's  web  page  for  the  State
Department  Advisory  Committee  on International Communications and
Information Policy at: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/intellec.html.

As noted  above,  you  can  send  comments  by  electronic  mail to:
xxxxxx@uspto.gov.  They must be in by November 22, 1996.   Copies
of  the  treaty,  commentary, and the PTO federal register notice is
available from  http://www.public-domain.org.   Public-Domain  is an
independent  citizen's  organization  being  formed  to  fight  this
treaty, and more generally to protect the public domain  in  matters
concerning intellectual property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 APPENDIX

Letters  of  Presidents  of  National  Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, and  Institute  of Medicine in opposition to
the database treaty.

October 9, 1996
The Honorable Michael Kantor
Secretary of Commerce
Department of Commerce
14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Kantor:

We are writing to express our serious concern about pending  changes
to  international  and  domestic  intellectual property law that are
being  supported  by  the   Department  of  Commerce.   Although  we
understand that  the  wide  availability  and  easy  transmittal  of
digital  databases can present difficulties for database vendors, we
believe that  the  August  30,  1996  Draft  Treaty  on Intellectual
Property in Respect to Databases, which was prepared under the World
Intellectual Property Organization  (WIPO),  has  the  potential  to
undermine  our nations progress in scientific and technical research
and education  if  appropriate  exceptions  and  limitations are not
clearly articulated.  As you may  know,  the  proposed  WIPO  treaty
contains major provisions, intended to do the following.

Prohibit  unauthorized extraction, use, or reuse of any database, or
any substantial portion of  a  database  (as defined by the database
vendor), and effectively  establish  the  basis  for  a  pay-per-use
system;  -  Make  perpetual  protection  the  norm for databases, by
making a 15-year  initial  term  of  protection renewable with every
substantial change or addition to a  database,  actions  that  occur
frequently  with most electronic databases; - Apply to all privately
generated data, or  repackaged  U.S.   government  data (outside the
United States, government databases would be protected by  this  law
as  well);  and  -  Include  strong  civil  and  criminal penalties,
including  provisions  for  third-party  liability  (e.g., liability
incurred by the unwitting intermediary or disseminator).

While we certainly do not dispute the right  of  database  compilers
and  vendors  to obtain reasonable protection of their products, the
proposed law fails to  provide  for any public-good exceptions, such
as the fair use exemption traditionally enjoyed by the research  and
education  communities  for  their limited use of copyrighted works.
Database  publishers  would  effectively   obtain  an  absolute  and
perpetual monopoly in their data compilations, including preexisting
data  sets.   The  proposed  changes  would  significantly   inhibit
researchers seeking to reuse and combine data for publication or for
research  (an  especially acute problem for researchers using large,
continuously updated observational data  sets), as well as educators
wishing to use portions of data  sets  for  instructional  purposes.
The new law also would overturn a series of Supreme Court cases that
limit   intellectual   property  rights  in  the  interest  of  free
competition.

We believe that these changes  to  the intellectual property law, if
enacted in their present form, would seriously undermine the ability
of researchers and educators to access and use scientific data,  and
would  have  a  deleterious long-term impact on our nations research
capabilities.    Moreover,   the   proposed   changes   are  broadly
antithetical  to  the  principle  of  full  and  open  exchange   of
scientific  data  espoused  by  the  U.S.   government  and academic
science communities,  and  promoted  internationally.   We are aware
that  these  and  additional  concerns  regarding  changes  to   the
intellectual  property  law, have been communicated to the President
and Vice President  by  the  Digital  Future Coalition, the American
Society  for  Information  Systems,  the  Association  of   Research
Libraries, and the American Association of Universities.

What is especially disconcerting is that these radical legal changes
have  been  proposed  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  for  formal
discussion  and  negotiation  at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference this
December, without any  debate  or  analysis  of the laws potentially
harmful implications for our nations  scientific  and  technological
development.   Indeed,  although  the unintended consequences appear
very grave to those studying  these  issues, very few individuals at
the science agencies or in the academic community appear even to  be
aware  that such changes are about to take place, nor has there been
any effort made to solicit their views.

If the current Draft Treaty  on  Intellectual Property in Respect of
Databases is adopted by WIPO, these changes will move  substantially
toward  becoming the new international norm in intellectual property
law by  the  end  of  this  year.   Therefore,  we  request  that no
precipitous  action  be  taken  at  the  planned   WIPO   Diplomatic
Conference  before the range of consequences of the proposed changes
is fully understood and appropriate modifications are made.

The underlying issues that have  given rise to the potential changes
in intellectual property law will also be described in a  report  to
be  published by the National Research Council later this fall.  The
study committee that prepared  that  report  plans to hold a one-day
symposium at the National  Academy  of  Sciences  to  explore  these
issues  in greater detail with key officials from the Administration
and Congress.  In the meantime, we hope that you will take the steps
necessary to  avert  what  could  otherwise  become an unnecessarily
damaging and contentious development in intellectual property law.

Sincerely,

Bruce Alberts, National Academy of Sciences
Wm. A. Wulf , National Academy of Engineering
Kenneth I. Shine, Institute of Medicine

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored
by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on
Technology (CPT).  Both groups are projects of the Center for
Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader.  The
LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information.  Archives
of Info-Policy-Notes are available from

http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/

TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages.

http://www.tap.org
http://www.essential.org/cpt

Subscription requests to tap-info to xxxxxx@tap.org with
the message:  subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe

TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367,
Washington, DC  20036, Voice:  202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard H. Moore
xxxxxx@coastal.edu