General_Effort

WHAT?!

Original paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08944-w

Wikipedia about the site (seems credible)

The analysis was produced by a Finnish think tank.

Have you done your X-mas shopping yet?

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21559272

Anticircumvention laws are the reason no one can sell you a “jailbreaking” tool so your printer is able to recognise and use cheaper, generic ink cartridges. It’s why farmers couldn’t repair their own John Deere tractors until recently and why people who use powered wheelchairs can’t fix their vehicles, even down to minor adjustments like customising the steering handling.

These laws were made in the US but they are among America’s most successful exports. The US trade representative has lobbied — overtly in treaty negotiations; covertly as foreign legislatures debated their IP laws — for America’s trading partners to enact their own versions.

The quid pro quo: countries that passed such laws got tariff-free access to American markets.

With the tariffs being imposed at Trump's whim, it's worthwhile for the rest of the world to revisit their laws which limit peoples' ability to control the software on devices they own.

This post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there's an archived copy of the article

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21559272

Anticircumvention laws are the reason no one can sell you a “jailbreaking” tool so your printer is able to recognise and use cheaper, generic ink cartridges. It’s why farmers couldn’t repair their own John Deere tractors until recently and why people who use powered wheelchairs can’t fix their vehicles, even down to minor adjustments like customising the steering handling.

These laws were made in the US but they are among America’s most successful exports. The US trade representative has lobbied — overtly in treaty negotiations; covertly as foreign legislatures debated their IP laws — for America’s trading partners to enact their own versions.

The quid pro quo: countries that passed such laws got tariff-free access to American markets.

With the tariffs being imposed at Trump's whim, it's worthwhile for the rest of the world to revisit their laws which limit peoples' ability to control the software on devices they own.

This post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there's an archived copy of the article

1. Lawyer gave free legal advice to an immigrant family.
2. Goons claiming to investigate "obstruction of justice" visit him at home while taking down the wifi.
3. The story is made public.
4. Now he's out of a job.

That story was discussed previously here: https://lemmy.world/post/28688525

Abstract

In the early 2000s, the American proprietary software company Microsoft dominated the European Union's (EU) markets for desktop and server operating systems, and for productivity software. A coalition of determined open-source software (OSS) advocates and a handful of technology experts working in the European Commission set out in 2004 to end Microsoft's monopoly. They almost succeeded. This article reveals how they managed to change the EU's software policies, made Microsoft lobbyists work overtime - and in the end, and despite their best efforts, could not withstand the power of proprietary companies’ lobbying campaigns.

Drawing on the Multiple Streams Framework, the article explains the European Commission’s decision to promote OSS and open standards in 2004, and its puzzling decision to reverse course just a few years later, in 2010, despite its unchanged rhetoric about the benefits of openness. The analysis reveals three key factors that drove the changes in the EU’s policies. In 2004, OSS advocates managed to frame the EU’s dependency on proprietary software as a problem – and the promotion of OSS and open standards as the solution. In 2010, Microsoft and other proprietary companies used their existing connections in Brussels to sow doubt about the maturity and cost of OSS among EU policymakers. They also infiltrated open-source expert groups to influence future EU open-source policies. Economic and political developments in technology markets also played in favor of the proprietary incumbents. This article contributes to our understanding of the dynamic interplay between OSS advocacy and the influence of proprietary incumbent companies on EU policymaking. This is important because history is repeating itself with the current tug-of-war over open-source artificial intelligence in Brussels.

by Nora von Ingersleben-Seip

Munich Papers in Political Economy / Working Paper No. 03/2025