FSI researchers consider international development from a variety of angles. They analyze ideas such as how public action and good governance are cornerstones of economic prosperity in Mexico and how investments in high school education will improve China’s economy.
They are looking at novel technological interventions to improve rural livelihoods, like the development implications of solar power-generated crop growing in Northern Benin.
FSI academics also assess which political processes yield better access to public services, particularly in developing countries. With a focus on health care, researchers have studied the political incentives to embrace UNICEF’s child survival efforts and how a well-run anti-alcohol policy in Russia affected mortality rates.
FSI’s work on international development also includes training the next generation of leaders through pre- and post-doctoral fellowships as well as the Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program.
This paper provides an understanding of the current copyright laws regarding software licensing in the United States and Europe. The concept of copyright under both the U.S. and EU legal regimes is to convey on the copyright owners the exclusive right to distribute their copyrighted software. In case of sales transactions, that right is expressly limited to statutory copyright law.
Sections 109 and 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act are the respective core provisions to apply to software transactions. It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a work obtained at an authorized sale to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy. In addition, the owner of a copy of a computer program may, inter alia, create another copy of that program provided that the copy is made either as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or for archival or back-up purposes. Under U.S. case law the crucial question is whether a licensee of software can be deemed as an "owner" of a copy of the software and as such trigger the first sale immunities. The paper shows the different approaches taken by different courts on the so-called "sale versus license debate".
Article 4(c) of the Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs ("EC Software Directive") contains the European version of the first sale doctrine, the Community exhaustion doctrine. The first sale of a copy of a computer program by the copyright owners or with their consent shall exhaust the distribution right of that copy within the European Communities (EC) or European Economic Area (EEA). Contrary to the sale versus license debate in U.S. case law, European courts—with no greater argument—deemed software licensees subject to exhaustion. The courts have been more concerned to apply the doctrine of exhaustion in a way as to further the implementation of the fundamental freedom of free movement of goods and services in the EC.
On the basis of a transatlantic copyright analysis the paper will discuss, in a second step, the existence of a digital first sale doctrine (as called in the United States) or digital Community exhaustion doctrine (as known under EC law). The paper debates whether the first sale/exhaustion privilege is to apply also in the event of online-transmissions of software, i.e., when no tangible data carrier embodying the target software changes hands. In today’s world, copies of copyrighted works, including software, are bought with increasing frequency by electronically downloading them through networks, mostly the Internet, with no tangible copy of the target software provided. However, digital transmissions of copyrighted works over the Internet fit neither comfortably within the narrow concepts of first sale nor exhaustion. In discussing whether online distribution of software shall render sections 109 and 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act or Article 4(c) of the EC Software Directive applicable, the paper concludes that in the absence of persuasive case law in either jurisdiction on this matter, U.S. governmental authorities tend to protect software copyright owners, whereas the existence of a digital Community exhaustion doctrine may be based on the ground of free movement of information.
This research was published as TTLF Working Paper No. 6 at
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/ttlf/#ttlf_working_papers.
Reaching everything from medicine to the food industry, biotechnology’s impact on society has become a major economic factor and is ever-increasing. In addition to its impressive potential benefits, biotechnology carries serious risks, especially regarding security and ethics. The European Patent Convention includes statutory restrictions regarding morality and public policy, while today’s U.S. laws in contrast, try to avoid morality restrictions in patenting biotechnology and U.S. agencies generally grant patents without regard to moral concerns. Not long ago, the U.S. Patent Act included a morality doctrine which had a restrictive effect on biotechnology.
The new U.S. approach applies to micro-organisms, plants, and animals where moral concerns were not considered at all before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is not clear, if the moral questions re-emerged referring to the Newman/Rifkin patent application, claiming an animal-human chimera, since the application was finally rejected on the grounds that human beings do not constitute statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This line of argumentation was a break from the developed case law concerning living matter. The attempt to keep ethical concerns out of the U.S. patent laws stands on very shaky grounds.
Another problem arises from the fact that both patent systems, in Europe and the U.S., are relying on the term “human” as a borderline for patentability but none of them define the term “human” which leads to ambiguities. An interesting approach came up, defining a human being not by its biological criteria but rather by its intellectual capabilities. However, this approach is still in its infancy.
The project is co-sponsored by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum (TTLF, a joint initiative of Stanford Law School and the University of Vienna School of Law) and by Stanford University’s Forum on Contemporary Europe at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Ethnic Europe examines the increasingly complex ethnic challenges facing the expanding European Union. Essays from eleven experts tackle such issues as labor migration, strains on welfare economies, the durability of local traditions, the effects of globalized cultures, and the role of Islamic diasporas, separatist movements, and threats of terrorism. With Europe now a destination for global immigration, European countries are increasingly alert to the difficult struggle to balance minority rights with social cohesion. In pondering these dilemmas, the contributors to this volume take us from theory, history, and broad views of diasporas, to the particularities of neighborhoods, borderlands, and popular literature and film that have been shaped by the mixing of ethnic cultures.
Roughly a billion people around the world continue to live in state of chronic hunger and food insecurity. Unfortunately, efforts to improve their livelihoods must now unfold in the context of a rapidly changing climate, in which warming temperatures and changing rainfall regimes could threaten the basic productivity of the agricultural systems on which most of the world's poor directly depend. But whether climate change represents a minor impediment or an existential threat to development is an area of substantial controversy, with different conclusions wrought from different methodologies and based on different data.
This book aims to resolve some of the controversy by exploring and comparing the different methodologies and data that scientists use to understand climate's effects on food security. It explains the nature of the climate threat, the ways in which crops and farmers might respond, and the potential role for public and private investment to help agriculture adapt to a warmer world. This broader understanding should prove useful to both scientists charged with quantifying climate threats, and policy-makers responsible for crucial decisions about how to respond. The book is especially suitable as a companion to an interdisciplinary undergraduate or graduate level class.
Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
U.S.-Asia Technology Management Center
School of Engineering
Stanford, CA
At Stanford University, Dr. Dasher has directed the US-Asia Technology Management Center since 1994, and he has been Executive Director of the Center for Integrated Systems since 1998. He holds Consulting Professor appointments at Stanford in the Departments of Electrical Engineering (technology management), Asian Languages and Cultures (Japanese business), and at the Asia-Pacific Research Center for his work with the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He is also faculty adviser to student-run organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Student Entrepreneurship Society and the Forum for American/Chinese Exchange at Stanford.
From 2004, Dr. Dasher became the first non-Japanese person ever asked to join the governance of a Japanese national university, serving a term as a Board Director (理事) of Tohoku University . He continued as a member of the Management Council (経営協議会) until March 2010, and he now serves as Senior Advisor to the President (総長顧問) of Tohoku University. Dr. Dasher has been a member of the high-profile Program Committee of the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI) of the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) since 2007. He has served on the Multidisciplinary Assessment Committee of the C$500 million Canada Foundation for Innovation Leading Edge Fund in 2007 and again in 2010, and as a member of the Phase I and Phase II Review Panels of the C$200 million Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program in 2008 and again in 2010. He was a distinguished reviewer of the Hong Kong S.A.R. study on innovation in 2008–09, and since 2007 he has been a member of the Foresight Panel of the German Ministry of Education and Research. From 2001–03, Dr. Dasher was on the International Planning Committee advising the Japanese Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy in regard to the formation of the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.
As allowed by Stanford policy, Dr. Dasher maintains an active management consulting practice, through which he is an advisor to start-up companies and large firms in the U.S., Japan, and China. He has been a board director of Tokyo-based ZyCube Inc. since 2006, and he is founder and chairman of Pearl Executive Shuttle in Valdosta, Georgia, U.S.A. In the non-profit sector, he is a Board Director of the Japan Society of Northern California and the Keizai Society U.S. – Japan Business Forum, and he is an advisor to organizations such as the Chinese Information and Networking Association, the Silicon Valley – China Wireless Technology Association, and the International Foundation for Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology (iFEST). In 2010 he served as a consultant to The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE) in regard to their establishment of a worldwide remote mentoring program for entrepreneurs. Dr. Dasher frequently gives speeches and seminars throughout Japan and Asia, as well as in the U.S. Recent appearances include the Nikkei Shimbun Business Innovation Forum, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, speaking tours of Japan co-sponsored by METI and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and guest lectures at Chubu University, Kochi University of Technology, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, and the University of Tokyo.
From 1990–93, Dr. Dasher was a board director of two privately-held Japanese companies in Tokyo, at which he developed new business in international licensing of media rights packages and other intellectual properties. From 1986–90, he was Director of the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service Institute advanced field schools in Japan and Korea, which provide full-time language and area training to U.S. and select Commonwealth country diplomats assigned to those countries. He received M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Linguistics from Stanford University and, along with Prof. Elizabeth Closs Traugott, he is co-author of the often-cited book Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge University Press, 2002). He received the Bachelor of Music degree in clarinet and orchestra conducting from the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, where he served on the faculty from 1978-85.
How do military allies come to find each other more dependable on security issues, instead of less comfortable with mutual reliance? How do rival nations manage to build confidence and shared expectations for a collaborative future, rather than fall into a spiral of suspicions over each other's strategic intentions? Leif-Eric Easley, the 2010-11 Northeast Asian History Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC), addresses these key questions in his recently completed dissertation, Perceived National Identity Differences and Strategic Trust: Explaining Post Cold-War Security Relations Among China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Examining post-1992 Northeast Asia, and drawing from a broad range of source materials in four languages, Dr. Easley argues that differences in how the policymaking elite in two countries perceive the national identity of one another determines the level of strategic trust between their governments. This ultimately affects patterns of cooperation on national and international security matters.
With a background in both political science and mathematics, and paying close attention to historical issues in East Asia, Dr. Easley earned his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University in 2010. While at Shorenstein APARC, he is revising his dissertation into a book and will teach a course about nationalism and security relations in Northeast Asia. In a recent interview, Dr. Easley discussed his research and future plans.
What is one of the most interesting and timely case studies that you examined?
Japan and China have had
a very difficult time improving the level of strategic trust between them. The
reasons for this are numerous. There are, of course, the historical legacies of
Japanese colonialism, the Pacific War, and indeed hundreds of years of
disagreements between China and Japan.
Even though those were largely papered over in favor of normalizing relations
in the 1970s and then building up an economic relationship—China is now Japan's
largest trading partner—a lot of that historical baggage was not fully
unpacked. The Chinese say there are a lot of things the Japanese have not
apologized for. The Japanese say that Beijing tends to use anti-Japanese
nationalism for its own domestic purposes. At various points of time in the
post-Cold War era—whether it has to do with the way that textbooks are being
revised or how the Japanese prime minister periodically pays homage to Japan's
war dead at the Yasakuni Shrine—Chinese nationalism has found expression in
anti-Japanese protests.
My argument is that such historical antagonisms, among other things, bring to
light the perceptions of identity difference between the two sides. The more
severe the perceptions of difference, the more of a gap that elites in one
country see between their national identity and the national identity of the
other side, and the less trust the two sides are going to have. So these
historical issues really weigh down on the level of strategic trust between
Tokyo and Beijing. This is problematic—not just for dealing with pressing hard
security issues like North Korea or trying to advance regional security
architectures like the ASEAN Regional Forum—but also because strategic trust is
very important for facilitating cooperation and avoiding conflict. Without a
decent measure of trust, you do not have much margin for error when some
unforeseen things happen, such as the recent incident over the Senkaku/Diaoyu
Islands.
Based on your dissertation, what steps
would you recommend for governments to build strategic trust?
A lot of work in both academic and policy circles has pointed to mechanisms
like increasing exchanges and trying to cooperate on so-called "easy" issues to
establish a pattern of cooperation. Meanwhile, politicians and diplomats tend
to be concerned with different forms of political theater to produce positive
headlines.
My theory suggests that if trust-building efforts do not actually change the
deeply-held perceptions that each side maintains about the other's national
identity, then you are not going to see a meaningful and lasting effect on the
level of strategic trust. That is not to say that exchanges and trying to rack
up points on easy issues is not worth doing or will not ultimately have some
positive effect. But the sorts of events and actions that really change
perceptions and then can allow for meaningful changes in strategic trust are
those that help redefine the relationship or the way that one side looks at the
other.
For example, if Japan were to have an entirely different memorial site where
its leaders could remember and honor Japan's veterans, separate from a shrine
that has a certain view of history associated with it that is very
objectionable to its neighbors, this could be something that would help change
perceptions. Contrast that to a carefully worded speech by a prime minister.
Japan has actually apologized dozens of times and yet the problem is still
there. Those apologies, as well-meaning as they may be, have not significantly
changed identity perceptions and hence we do not see much improvement in
strategic trust between Beijing and Tokyo.
Another example would be dealing with some of the recent maritime disputes. If
the China-Japan relationship had more strategic trust, it might be able to
encapsulate those issues and not let them derail the relationship. But this is
not yet the case. Coming to a greater level of agreement about how to deal with
economic zones and how to pursue joint development of underwater gas deposits
could really do a lot to improve perceptions on both sides. This would ameliorate Japanese
perceptions of an aggressive Chinese identity, and help resolve a hot-button
nationalist issue between the two populations. Real improvement in identity
perceptions, such that each side thinks better of the other's international
role and national characteristics, would allow Japan and China to realize a
more stable, trusting relationship.
What is the course that you will offer at Stanford and what approach will you
take to teaching?
The course will be about
nationalism and security relations in Northeast Asia. I am hoping to engage
these issues with some fresh perspective. What I want to do is provide students
with background on the different forms of nationalist conflict in Northeast
Asia to help them understand where these historical legacies and identity
frictions come from. These are really contemporarily relevant issues. I will
ask students to write on a very specific topic—a nationalist issue of their
choice—and develop not only their own analysis, but also some of their own
suggestions. This is a lot to expect, but I anticipate that the students are
going to be up to the challenge. The students will probably come from different
fields—including political science, history, sociology, and Asian studies. I
think that with their diverse backgrounds, they will benefit from the
environment here at Shorenstein APARC.
Shorenstein APARC is really special among centers—nationally and even
internationally—in the way that it brings together academic rigor, policy
relevance, and policy experience. We have top-flight academics, and we also
have very distinguished policymakers, who bring a wealth of experience to the
table. With more exchange between the academic and the policymaking
communities, both sides stand to benefit tremendously. Shorenstein APARC is one
of the few places that is doing this, and doing it so well.
Do you hope to work in academia or
government, or serve in both fields?
I plan to pursue an academic career, but at the same time to produce
research and publications with policy relevance. Teaching is incredibly
important because there is more and more demand among students with interest in
Asia, and increasing demand across sectors for people who have expertise in
Asian history and political economics. Teaching is an opportunity, not only to
help prepare the next generation of experts, but also to improve my research
and writing through interaction with students. Likewise, being able to take a
sabbatical to serve in an advisory role at the U.S. Department of State, the
Pentagon, or National Security Council would be a great opportunity to have
real-world impact on the incredibly pressing issues in U.S.-Asia relations.
Policy work is also a chance to expand one's own skillset and basis of
research.
Take for example, Thomas Christensen of Princeton University and Victor Cha of Georgetown University. Both are strong academics, who publish in top academic journals and produce academic books. They also served in the State Department and National Security Council respectively. After making positive contributions on the policy side, they returned to their universities with firsthand knowledge of the complex relationship between theory and practice. I hope to one day have an opportunity for public service and then return to academia with experience that is of value to my research and of value to my students.
Milan Svolik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his Ph.D. in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago in 2006.
His current research is in two main areas: i) the politics of authoritarian regimes and ii) the politics of democratic transitions and consolidation. His broader research interests are in comparative and international politics, particularly the political economy of institutions, formal political theory, and statistical methodology.
His research on the politics of authoritarian regimes consists of a series of papers that investigate power-sharing, institutions, leader survival, and accountability in authoritarian regimes. He has also collected original data on leadership change in authoritarian regimes and data on coups d'état across regime types. He is currently incorporating this research into a book manuscript, provisionally entitled The Politics of Authoritarian Rule.
CO-SPONSORED BY COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Susan Hyde is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Yale University, where she is affiliated with the MacMillian Center and the Institute for Social and Policy Studies. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego in 2006, and has held fellowships at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and Princeton University's Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance. Her research interests include international influences on domestic politics, elections in developing countries, international norm creation, election manipulation, and the use of natural and field experimental research methods. Her current research explores the effects of international democracy promotion efforts, and her research has been published in World Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Perspectives on Politics, the Journal of Politics. She has recently completed a book entitled The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Monitoring Became an International Norm. She has served as an international observer with several organizations for elections in Albania, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Venezuela, and has worked for the Democracy Program at The Carter Center. She teaches courses on international organizations, democracy promotion, the global spread of elections, and the role of non-state actors in world politics.
CO-SPONSORED BY COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Elias Muhanna is a PhD candidate in Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Harvard University and the author of QifaNabki.com, a blog devoted to Lebanese political affairs. He has written extensively on contemporary cultural and political affairs in the Middle East for several general-interest publications, including The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Guardian, The National, Mideast Monitor, World Politics Review, Bidoun, and Transition, and is regularly quoted in media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The Christian Science Monitor, Slate, and Al-Jazeera International.
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room