"GOAL may or may not be the right venue for this discussion. Advice on this would be welcome."
>>>> On this question, on the role of GOAL, and on the future of the list I am happy to hear the views of list members. I have been thinking about the future of GOAL for a while now. As the name signals, it was set up to discuss open access. More specifically, the description of the list says that it is "dedicated to the discussion of Open Access practice and policy-making by the worldwide research community (in no order: researchers, universities, research institutions, research funding agencies, governmental research policy-makers and commercial entities) with the aim of enabling concrete, practical steps to be taken to achieve Open Access. Chief among these goals are techniques for increasing the amount of Open Access, as well as metrics of research usage and impact." However, discussions about open access have now become mainstream and the reality is that much of the debate tends to take place elsewhere today, not least on Twitter. I am happy to continue moderating the list, I am happy for the list to continue as it is. I am also happy to discuss GOAL's focus, its role and its future. But I think this would need to be a discussion that members of the list were involved in. All thoughts/suggestions are welcomed. Best wishes, Richard Poynder GOAL Moderator From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: 03 September 2021 16:14 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] COVID IP waiver request: interesting but not entirely informed? Thank you, Ulrich. The exception does look like it would be helpful in an emergency like COVID, and likely necessary as the default is an expectation of protection of rights and commercial exploitation; this is also on p. 102. There is a sharp contrast in the E.U. and North America between success in achieving OA as the default in dissemination of results and expectation of protecting IP for commercial exploitation. It would be interesting to have meaningful and informed discussion about this. To participate in informed discussion, participants should understand the basics about the different types of IP. For those who may be new to this area, WIPO's "What is intellectual property" page is a good starting point: https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ The Public Library of Science (PLOS) Terms of Use may also be helpful to OA advocates in understanding the different types of IP. Like most fully OA publishers with a firm commitment to open licensing, PLOS is very protective of their own work, including their own text on the website and their trademark. https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fabout-ip%2Fen%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109834028%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Hz1za3hvUkRVKMxVVUOh0L9Y9y1eTHr%2B0HfIkb8wrrw%3D&reserved=0> The Google business model of advertising-supported facilitated access to free knowledge and services created by others, made possible by algorithms carefully protected as trade secrets, is another example of how different the various types of IP are. It is not unusual for a single internet search to invoke multiple different types of IP that work in very different fashion. COVID is an interesting case study. My impression (not based on substantive research) is that the world, including the traditional commercial scholarly publishing industry, has made considerable progress in open sharing of information about the virus. There is no doubt still a great deal of room for improvement, but this is an advance and should be celebrated as much. I wonder how much the success of the OA / open data movements to date contributed to the rapid development of COVID vaccines in multiple countries. Manufacturing involves patent law, and the manufacturing industries are very different from scholarly publishing. In the case of COVID vaccine manufacture, even under the current licensing regime, we have instances of what looks to me (as a non-expert) like rapid implementation of manufacture (Johnson & Johnson in Baltimore, more recently a Moderna factory in Spain creating doses for Japan) resulting in contaminated vaccines. This is not helpful in a context where vaccine hesitancy and an anti-vaccination movement are significant barriers to addressing COVID. In this case, simply opening up the rights to manufacture vaccines to anyone could do more harm than good. On the other hand, the profit-driven pharma-as-usual model may be driving a push for booster shots in rich countries that may not be necessary, when the most compassionate and smartest approach (even for the rich countries) is likely shots in arms everywhere (to reduce opportunities for new variants to develop). I see this as a good opportunity for discussion on how IP works in this area and how to do it better. Lessons from the OA movement may or may not be relevant, but understanding how to produce and distribute quality vaccines and other medicines is absolutely essential for informed discussion in this area. GOAL may or may not be the right venue for this discussion. Advice on this would be welcome. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Cross-appointed, Department of Communication Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Funiweb.uottawa.ca%2F%3Flang%3Den%23%2Fmembers%2F706&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109834028%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tPGz85O764Yv%2FlxZZOMDPOTxjSJuZqYFtJx%2FEgUtbd0%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ From: Ulrich Herb <u.h...@sulb.uni-saarland.de<mailto:u.h...@sulb.uni-saarland.de>> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 7:36 AM To: goal <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Cc: Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] COVID IP waiver request: interesting but not entirely informed? Attention : courriel externe | external email perhaps this might be of interest: in its new research framework programme Horizon Europe the European Commission states this (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/agr-contr/general-mga_horizon-euratom_en.pdf, p. 102) ... *** Where the call conditions impose additional exploitation obligations in case of a public emergency, the beneficiaries must (if requested by the granting authority) grant for a limited period of time specified in the request, non-exclusive licences - under fair and reasonable conditions - to their results to legal entities that need the results to address the public emergency and commit to rapidly and broadly exploit the resulting products and services at fair and reasonable conditions. This provision applies up to four years after the end of the action. *** As there was no such statement in the model grant agreements of earlier framework programmes, I interpret this regulation a direct reaction to the COVID pandemic... Best regards Ulrich ----- Am 2. Sep 2021 um 22:07 schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com<mailto:nemow...@gmail.com>: Il 01/09/21 23:25, Heather Morrison ha scritto: > The WHO letter mentions but does not request what I suggest is a more likely > approach to avoiding IP interference with addressing the pandemic in the > short term: compulsory licensing. This is the official reason used by the EU to block the waiver (or at least it was until Biden came out in support of it and force everyone to change tune). https://www.keionline.org/36300<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.keionline.org%2F36300&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109834028%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CbuQ5jo0tThbTcZzFWUZrhIvAp01tUxnMUJV3MwrchM%3D&reserved=0> It's true that the USA could easily implement compulsory licensing overnight, but for other countries it can prove more difficult. There are dozens of articles in the KEI website on this matter, I'm unable to summarise them. It's highly recommended reading. Communia, Wikimedia and others have also supported the extension of waiver to copyright, see most recently: https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-supports-the-wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.communia-association.org%2F2021%2F03%2F22%2Fcommunia-supports-the-wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109843985%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=COgxq9m0iE%2B9d5zL%2FDERmUuczfzB1fevEp0zMdNWPJk%3D&reserved=0> Best regards, Federico _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgoal&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109843985%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PXuwCDcLrGw3NooqmeL7M4%2FdLD77VFokLJsAYxMtDjQ%3D&reserved=0> -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dr. Ulrich Herb Saarländische Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Referent für elektronisches Publizieren und Open Access, Drittmittel-Projekte Postanschrift: Postfach 15 11 41 | 66041 Saarbrücken Besucheranschrift: Campus B1 1 | Raum 10.07. | 66123 Saarbrücken T: +49 681 302-2798 F: +49 681 302-2796 u.h...@sulb.uni-saarland.de<mailto:u.h...@sulb.uni-saarland.de> www.sulb.uni-saarland.de<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sulb.uni-saarland.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109853942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0yF0B2y3HVhGanr4R0AWYrxbDrV2rSc8CqVNlylDJKw%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
