Obama’s speech at ASU made the perfect statement about the controversy surrounding this honorary degree crap. He noted that we should not become complacent with our previous achievements, but instead keep pushing to work harder in your life.
Most importantly, Obama stressed the importance of thankless work that often goes underappreciated. A label such as an honorary degree is an example of something that should not be valued as much as the spirit and drive of a person truly making an effort to improve our world.
Watch his speech here. It was fantastic.
- I had an obstructed view, but it was definitely him!
_
Shayna Skelley Main Education, Government
In this post I address Braden Cox’s argument that the EU missed the boat in its fining Intel today, because it didn’t focus a sufficient amount of attention on consumer welfare, choosing instead to look at the competition between Intel and AMD. What Mr. Cox fails to realize is that, even in the United States, our antitrust laws do not focus on whether consumers are better off when compared to where they were before the competition began. Instead, we focus on market power and anticompetitive conduct, because even if consumers are better off, there is no way to know if we could have been benefited even more had there been no anticompetitive behavior.
Read more…
Joshua L. Simmons Main Litigation, Media, Technology
In case you haven’t heard, Obama’s giving the commencement speech at ASU TODAY… in the 101 degree heat… and he’s NOT getting an honorary degree.
What’s up with that? There was a great vignette on the Daily Show about it. It also does a great job making fun of our undergrads. I agree that not every commencement speaker should be given a degree, but ASU has been so patchy about this in the past that it only makes us look ungrateful. Well, I suppose that reflects ASU’s high level of selectivity in their admission process….oh wait. (Except for our graduate programs, which are highly acclaimed, despite the pathetic undergraduate record)
p.s. I have a ticket to commencement! I’ll be sure to post photos. They’ll probably be of the crowd of literally tens of thousands of people filling the stadium. I hope I don’t melt.
Shayna Skelley Main Education
Back in February, I mentioned that before Russia physically invaded Georgia, they launched Internet-based attacks against the Georgian infrastructure. Well, it seems that I wasn’t the only one paying attention. Various United States military organizations—including the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marines, the Naval Postgraduate Academy, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and the National Security Agency—are training their members in cyber warfare.
After the jump, see more of the New York Times’ coverage.
Read more…
Joshua L. Simmons Main Cyber Warfare, New York Times
Britannia, rule the waves: Britons never will be slaves.
I don’t know what it is about British television, but I adore it. Perhaps it’s that the news is balanced and takes a world view. Perhaps it’s that the entertainment programs are less about being sensationalist and more about entertaining people. Or perhaps it’s just that the shows are smarter. Like they say in “Shakespeare in Love,” “I don’t know; it’s a mystery.” (Of course, they were talking about theatre).
Read more…
Joshua L. Simmons Main Media, News Organizations
A few days ago, David Post wrote about how the controversy surrounding the Google Books settlement could be heating up soon. I agree with him that as we near the fairness hearing (although it was moved back to October), things will get interesting, but I think he misses a crucial point.
Post’s post was responding to complaints by copyright holders about the unfairness of the settlement. His response focused on how amazing Google Books would be and the fundamental reasoning for having copyright and how, if it is no longer making “society better off,” it shouldn’t be upheld in this situation.
Post ignores the fact that the settlement was an agreement. The copyright holders could have taken the case to trial instead of settling, but they didn’t do that because they knew that a determination that what Google had done was fair use would have been disastrous for the future of book publishing (and at least the economic incentives for authorship). True not all copyright holders were part of the discussion, but class counsel was, and they had copyright holders in mind in reaching the agreement. It seems odd under these circumstances for commenters (read: IP lawyers) to argue that their clients aren’t going to get a fair shake, and somehow we should punish Google beyond the payments Google is making in the settlement.
At the end of the day, I agree with much of what Post says, but I think far too often we miss the forest for the trees. Google isn’t getting away for free, and copyright holders might see avenues of economic return that were impossible before the settlement was reached.
Joshua L. Simmons Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation