Software interoperability, intellectual property and competition law — Compulsory licenses for abuse of market dominance

Innovation is a shared purpose of both intellectual property (IP) and competition law. However, sometimes competition law conflicts with the interests of IP holders. This paper searches for an adequate criterion of practical concordance, which consists of evaluating, in the concrete situation, which of those regulations best performs the purpose of promoting innovation. It is considered that requirements of competition law shape IP regulations, but the internal limits of protection therein identified are not enough to safeguard concerns of competition law. In particular, European courts held that, in exceptional circumstances, IP holders with market dominant position can be compelled to grant licenses of IP protected goods, such as copyrighted information and software. Such lifting of the IP exclusion power finds its rationale in preserving competition and promoting innovation, which is particularly sensitive within the dynamic software market.     

Cursing the Cloud (or) Controlling the Cloud?

Inspired by the cloud computing hypes, this paper responds to some of the hypes, but not to all. The hype in this paper refers to the level of the adequacy of data protection and privacy in a cloud computing (the Cloud) environment. Paradoxically, this paper proffers observational insights that surround the Cloud from the perspectives of data protection and privacy. It examines briefly the efforts of January 2010 led by Microsoft and anticipating “liability” scenarios. The liability rhetorically refers to the illegal access in the Cloud. This paper does not focus entirely on the technology sophistication; however, it analyses two scenarios of illegal access. To mitigate the liability, it suggests a “Cloud Compliant Strategy (CCS)” being a proposed model to control the Cloud. The observational insights of this paper have also intertwined with the adequacy of data protection from the lenses of the European Union (EU) Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (DPD) and Safe Harbor provisions (SH).     

30 years on - The review of the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention 108

The Council of Europe is engaging in a process of revising its Data Protection Convention (Convention 108) to meet and overcome these challenges. The Council of Europe celebrates this year the 30th Anniversary of its Data Protection Convention (usually referred to as Convention 108) which has served as the backbone of international law in over 40 European countries and has influenced policy and legislation far beyond Europe’s shores. With new data protection challenges arising every day, the Convention is revising its Data Protection Convention. Computer Law and Security Review (CLSR) together with the Intl. Association of IT Lawyers (IAITL) and ILAWS have submitted comments in response to the Expert Committee’s public consultation on this document. CLSR aims to position itself at the forefront of policy discussion drawing upon the high quality scholarly contributions from leading experts around the world.     

U.S. Strategy in a Transitioning Middle East: Reviving ‘State Responsibility’

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the Middle East stemming from the Arab Awakening, and the inability of Washington to shape the process of transition, U.S. decision- makers must rethink their strategy for the region in general and for counterterrorism in particular. Reducing U.S. involvement in the region and letting the dust settle will serve American interests better and allow for building healthier relations with Middle Eastern countries. At the same time, since the risk of negative effects on neighboring states that accompany transition must be kept in check, the United States, together with other powers, should lead the international community in reviving the principle of “state responsibility” as a productive way to reduce spillover of conflicts and even provide incentives for actors in the region to limit violence.     

China and India: Economic Ties and Strategic Rivalry

How well do theories of economic interdependence and structural realism explain the India-China divergence between growing economic relations and continuing strategic mistrust? This article looks at the Indian side and argues that we need to go beyond economic and strategic factors, and brings in a more contingent approach based on domestic elite discourse and thinking. The article suggests that a more nuanced and complex debate on China is emerging in India than that posited by interdependence or realism, a debate that is framed by what I term nationalist, realist and globalist schools of thought, with the latter two groups currently holding the center of gravity.     

Descending Eagle: The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review & the Decline of U.S. Power

This article reviews power transition theory and emerging threats to U.S. national security. It then analyzes how the 2014 QDR will ensure U.S. relative power decline and how the strategy fails to effectively counter the rise of China and Russia as challenger states in the international system. Finally, several policy options are proposed to address the deficiencies of the QDR and to counter an increasingly aggressive China and revisionist Russia.     

‘Ali Baba's Cave’: The Sea of Okhotsk's Contentious Triangle

Amidst international furor over its annexation of Crimea, Russia quietly acquired a far more lucrative territory through different means: in March, the United Nations recognized Russia's claim to the resource-rich “Peanut Hole” in the center of the Sea of Okhotsk. This strategically and economically important body of water—a “real Ali Baba's cave” of untapped oil and gas reserves—lies within a contentious triangle formed by eastern Russia and northern Japan. Securing the Okhotsk's legal status as an internal sea goes far to advancing Russian claims in the Arctic, and bolsters Russia's bargaining position over four disputed Kuril islands which Japan callsits “Northern Territories.”     

Combating Asymmetric Threats: The Interplay of Offense and Defense

The overarching objective of this analysis is to examine the ways and means by which the United States could take the asymmetric battle-space and win against the ever-changing array of threats posed by nation-states and non-state actors. Today's security challenges are predominantly hybrids: offense and defense; symmetric and asymmetric; synchronous and asynchronous; regular and irregular; geographically-focused and globally-ubiquitous. This reality requires multi-dimensional thinking, nuanced approaches, and nimble, decisive execution guided by a new strategic paradigm. Fighting on the enemy's terms, scoring short-term wins at unjustifiably high costs in lives, treasure and lost opportunities is simply unacceptable.     

“Ukraine Fatigue” and a New U.S. Agenda for Europe and Eurasia

Ukraine's current policy line is counterproductive, according to the authors. Not only may potential supporters be unable to help Ukraine, they will probably not want to help it and will ignore the consequences of its distress given their preoccupation with other problems. Then many wolves will flock not only to Ukraine's but to Europe's door obliging us then to confront a much greater crisis with fewer resources at hand to meet it.     

Revisiting Nuclear Opacity in the Middle East: A Scenario

This article explores a scenario of extended nuclear opacity in the Middle East that would comprise two undeclared nuclear powers: Iran and Israel. We argue that this regional spread of nuclear opacity would act as a major driver of instability in terms of conflict prevention and non- proliferation efforts. In both cases, it would demand a profound reevaluation of security policies conducted by Western countries and their allies in the region. Extended nuclear opacity in the Middle East would mean no communication channels, and no declaratory policies. It would entail no information on security perceptions, doctrines, capabilities, or targeting policies. This scenario of nuclear opacity is worth exploring as it brings new light to several critical issues in security studies. In particular it re-emphasizes a feature sometimes considered too casually which is that deterrence, if it ever is working, is not a natural state. It is socially situated and needs solid prerequisites, among them a certain level of transparency and communication. It also offers a new perspective on the logic of “nuclear hedging” and it revives the question of security guarantees from external powers as relevant means to balance threats.