[A2k] IPR & competitiveness [Job and Growth Initiative] - EU Memo]
R.Corrigan
R.Corrigan@open.ac.uk
Thu May 4 08:27:15 2006
If you look at the way they are measuring "innovation" though, it seems to =
be as an average of ten indicators, five of which are related to intellectu=
al property (and three of those to patents).
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/inoutput.cfm
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/methodology.cfm#_ftn=
3
It's kinda circular to argue that innovation is directly correlated to numb=
ers of patents, when a significant part of the composite indicator you use =
to measure innovation is... numbers of patents.
Regards,
Ray
Ray Corrigan, Senior Lecturer in Technology, Open University; Visiting Fell=
ow, Harris Manchester College, Oxford University; Mailing address: Open Uni=
versity in the South, Foxcombe Hall, Boars Hill, Oxford, OX1 5HR, UK; Tel =
+44 (01865) 327000; blog http://b2fxxx.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin@lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin@lists.essential.org] =
On Behalf Of Michelle Childs
Sent: 03 May 2006 14:23
To: ip-health@lists.essential.org
Cc: a2k@lists.essential.org; ecommerce@lists.essential.org
Subject: [A2k] IPR & competitiveness [Job and Growth Initiative] - EU Memo]
--
Below is a long Memo from the EU Commission which sets out what the EU is d=
oing on IPR- with most focus on patents. Main message more patents=3D more =
innovation therefore the job of the Commission is to encouraging patenting.=
The meom was headed: 'Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of t=
he Commission's job and growth initiative '
Michelle
It makes a number of interesting statements:
<snip> The European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence =
that a lower level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the differen=
ce in innovation performance between EU countries and to the innovation gap=
between Europe, the US and Japan.
Also some stats:
<SNIP>
Statistics on patent applications in 2005
In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent applica=
tions with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The Netherlan=
ds with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications in 2005.
The top 25 applicants[to the EPO] represent about 18% of the patent applic=
ations filed with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the EPO are=
granted one patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the applicants re=
ceive more than 50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan 2%).
It also sets out a number of upcoming studies on IPR usage and projects suc=
h as PROTON:
<snip>.The objective of PROTON is to boost the commercial uptake of publicl=
y funded R&D throughout Europe by further developing the professional skill=
s of their technology interface structures with industry.
EU MEMO Text
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/181&f=
ormat=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
MEMO/06/181
Brussels, 3 May 2006
Part II
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of the Commission's job and=
growth initiative
There is a very close link between IPR and the competitiveness of the EU ec=
onomy. A proper, affordable IPR system is important to foster innovation. T=
he European Inventor of the Year event offers an opportunity to highlight t=
he achievements of European inventors. Knowledge and Intellectual Property =
Rights (IPR) are core elements of the revised growth and jobs initative. On=
this occasion the following ongoing key Commission policies regarding IPR =
should be highlighted (see
IP/558):
Innovation performance: Europe falls back vis-=E0-vis the US and Japan The =
European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence that a lowe=
r level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the difference in innov=
ation performance between EU countries and to the innovation gap between Eu=
rope, the US and Japan. However, leading Member States have a patenting act=
ivity similar to US one; they register twice as much EPO patents as the US,=
and the US registers twice as much USPTO patents as them. The available da=
ta clearly shows that patent indicators are highly correlated to countries =
global innovation performance. Countries doing well in terms of innovation =
performance also score high in patenting.
Figure: Innovation performance vs patenting activity
[Graphic in PDF & Word format]
The available data clearly shows a strong correlation between a strong IPR-=
culture and good innovation performance. Statistics on patent applications =
in 2005 In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent=
applications with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The N=
etherlands with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications i=
n 2005.
Origin=09Total
Austria=091 053=090,82%
Belgium=091 658=091,29%
Bulgaria=0911=090,01%
Switzerland=095 027=093,91%
Cyprus=0935=090,03%
Czech Republic=0973,06%
Germany=0923 789=0918,49%
Danmark=091 174=090,91%
Estonia=093=090,00%
Spain=09972=090,76%
Finland=091 514=091,18%
France=098 034=096,24%
United Kingdom=094 649=093,61%
Hellas=0967=090,05%
Hungary=0981=090,06%
Ireland=09311=090,24%
Iceland=0928=090,02%
Italy=094 199=093,26%
Lithuania=09152=090,12%
Latvia=091=090,00%
Luxemburg=09181=090,14%
Latvia=097=090,01%
Monaco=0915=090,01%
Netherlands=097 799=096,06%
Poland=09111=090,09%
Portugal=0941=090,03%
Romania=098=090,01%
Sweden=092 486=091,93%
SIovenia=0987=090,07%
Slovakia=0916=090,01%
Turkey=0968=090,05%
EPC =0963 650=0949,46%
Japan=0921 461=0916,68%
USA=0932 738=0925,44%
Other=0910 830=098,42%
non EPC=0965 029=0950,54%
Total=09128679=09100,0%
Top applicants at the EPO
Among the ten largest applicants at the EPO there are four European compani=
es, three companies from Japan, two from Korea and one from the US: Top App=
licants at the EPO in 2005
Rank=09Company=09Count=09Share
1=09KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.=094173=093,2%
2=09SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT=091548=091,2%
3=09MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.=091194=090,9%
4=09SONY CORPORATION=09964=090,7%
5=09ROBERT BOSCH GMBH=09845=090,7%
6=09NOKIA CORPORATION=09683=090,5%
7=09FUJITSU LIMITED=09672=090,5%
8=09BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT=09669=090,5%
9=09MICROSOFT CORPORATION=09645=090,5%
10=09SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.=09617=090,5%
11=09PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GMBH=09571=090,4%
12=093M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY=09507=090,4%
13=09INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION=09491=090,4%
14=09THOMSON LICENSING=09479=090,4%
15=09GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY=09462=090,4%
16=09L'OREAL S.A.=09448=090,3%
17=09CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA=09437=090,3%
18=09DSM IP ASSETS B.V.=09390=090,3%
19=09DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.=09388=090,3%
20=09LG ELECTRONICS INC.=09385=090,3%
21=09SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION=09383=090,3%
22=09DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG=09367=090,3%
23=09THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY=09356=090,3%
24=09RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED=09353=090,3%
25=09NEC CORPORATION=09342=090,3%
The top 25 applicants represent about 18% of the patent applications filed =
with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the EPO are granted one =
patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the applicants receive more th=
an 50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan 2%).
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard: http://europa.=
eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&format=3DHTML&aged=
=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard: http://europa.=
eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&format=3DHTML&aged=
=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
Europe needs an effective IPT system
It is therefore demanding that the EU works upon its weaknesses and turns t=
hem into strengths. Even though the concrete scope and shape of IPR protect=
ion at the EU level is debateable, a sound and effective IPR framework shou=
ld aim to contribute to:
*=09Better economic performance, through giving firms the right incentives
to make new inventions and the financial strength to continue to develop fu=
rther innovation;
*=09More efficient dissemination of new knowledge and ideas, through
encouraging intellectual property owners to publish their ideas and place t=
heir inventions on the market;
*=09Better products and services, through continuous product development,
whilst at the same time safeguarding health and safety and environmental pr=
otection through conformity with market regulations.
Community framework for patents is lacking
Proposals have been made, including one on the Community Patent, and anothe=
r on Computer Implemented Inventions. However, they have not yet received s=
ufficient political support to ensure their adoption. The adoption of the C=
ommunity patent would reduce the costs of patenting as well as increase leg=
al security for European enterprises in general. This would certainly contr=
ibute to a better protection of intellectual property in Europe. The Commis=
sion has recently started a consultation exercise on the Community patent a=
nd possible alternatives, such as the development of a "European Patent Lit=
igation Agreement" or the closer harmonisation and mutual recognition of Me=
mber State patents.
Reinforcing the IPR-culture throughout Europe
More also needs to be done however on awareness raising and supporting ente=
rprises, especially SMEs in valorising their intellectual property and usin=
g intellectual property rights. The Commission strives to encourage SMEs to=
valorise their intellectual property and make use of IPRs.
The Commission is undertaking a number of actions to assess what other supp=
ort measures can be taken. An Expert Group will draft policy recommendation=
s by end 2006, as part of the Commission's IPR-Initiative announced in the =
Industrial Policy Communication of autumn 2005. The recommendations will fo=
cus on how barriers to the use of IPR can be removed and how the relation b=
etween IPR and innovation can be strengthened. A specific TrendChart Worksh=
op will validate these policy recommendations.
The policy recommendations will have three building blocks.
*=091. A special statistical report on IPR usage will further analyse how
companies use IPR in different sectors, building upon the results of the Eu=
ropean Innovation Scoreboard. This report is foreseen for May 2006.
*=092. A report on barriers to the effective use of IPR will be produced by
the Commission's Europe INNOVA. Sectoral Innovation Panels by June 2006. Th=
is Report will identify the reasons for companies using or not using intell=
ectual property rights and possible policy measures in response.
*=093. A benchmarking study on publicly-funded IPR support services was
launched in January 2006. It will identify all existing regional and nation=
al support measures for companies in the field of IPR, assess their efficie=
ncy and identify good practices.
Based on these elements, it will be possible to identify where companies ex=
perience difficulties, whether government measures address these issues and=
propose points for improvement.
Furthermore, a number of specific IPR initiatives in support of enterprises=
will be launched under PRO INNO Europe, which supports trans-national coop=
eration, including the European Design Prize and the project led by the Eur=
opean Patent Office on "training the trainers" in IPR support services.
PROTON Europe is a network of technology transfer offices linked to Public =
Research Organisations and Universities. It is supported by the EC under th=
e Gate2Growth initiative. A significant amount of top research with current=
or potential commercial relevance is undertaken in universities and resear=
ch institutions in Europe. The objective of PROTON is to boost the commerci=
al uptake of publicly funded R&D throughout Europe by further developing th=
e professional skills of their technology interface structures with industr=
y.
More information: www.protoneurope.org/
The IPR Helpdesk provides free-of-charge basic guidance on intellectual pro=
perty issues to the stakeholders. Its main achievements are a range of mult=
ilingual tools: website, newsletter, topic documents. It also manages a fas=
t-reply helpline for individual queries. More information: http://www.ipr-h=
elpdesk.org/index.htm
Enforcing IPR in the fight against counterfeiting and product piracy Counte=
rfeiting is one of the major problems that the Commission has to cope with.=
From 2000 to 2005, customs seizures have increased by 1000%, while counter=
feiting is no longer limited only to fashion and design articles, but is ex=
tended to medicines and electrical equipment. The enforcement of intellectu=
al property rights in third countries is more than ever critical. The Commi=
ssions actions include:
*=09Close cooperation between Member States and the Commission must go on t=
o
continuously improve our custom control system.
*=09Speedy and reliable information exchange between authorities from
different Member States remains an important issue.
*=09Intensive cooperation between right-holders and customs authorities
*=09Activities are ongoing under the Commission's action plan for an
efficient customs response to counterfeiting and piracy.
*=09The Commission has just proposed to introduce criminal law provisions t=
o
combat intellectual property offences .
- IP/06/532 <http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3D=
IP/06/532&format=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Dfr>
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
[ Converted text/html to text/plain ]
FYI
E
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/181&f=
ormat=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[1]
MEMO/06/181
Brussels, 3 May 2006
Part II
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of the Commissions job and =
growth initiative
There is a very close link between IPR and the competitiveness of the EU ec=
onomy. A proper, affordable IPR system is important to foster innovation. T=
he European Inventor of the Year event offers an opportunity to highlight t=
he achievements of European inventors. Knowledge and Intellectual Property =
Rights
(IPR) are core elements of the revised growth and jobs initative. On this o=
ccasion the following ongoing key Commission policies regarding IPR should =
be highlighted (see IP/558):
Innovation performance: Europe falls back vis-=E0-vis the US and Japan
The European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence that a =
lower level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the difference in i=
nnovation performance between EU countries and to the innovation gap betwee=
n Europe, the US and Japan. However, leading Member States have a patenting=
activity similar to US one; they register twice as much EPO patents as the=
US, and the US registers twice as much USPTO patents as them. The availabl=
e data clearly shows that patent indicators are highly correlated to countr=
ies global innovation performance. Countries doing well in terms of innovat=
ion performance also score high in patenting.
Figure: Innovation performance vs patenting activity
[Graphic in PDF & Word format]
The available data clearly shows a strong correlation between a strong IPR-=
culture and good innovation performance.
Statistics on patent applications in 2005
In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent applica=
tions with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The Netherlan=
ds with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications in 2005.
Origin Total
Austria 1 053 0,82%
Belgium 1 658 1,29%
Bulgaria 11 0,01%
Switzerland 5 027 3,91%
Cyprus 35 0,03%
Czech Republic 73,06%
Germany 23 789 18,49%
Danmark 1 174 0,91%
Estonia 3 0,00%
Spain 972 0,76%
Finland 1 514 1,18%
France 8 034 6,24%
United Kingdom 4 649 3,61%
Hellas 67 0,05%
Hungary 81 0,06%
Ireland 311 0,24%
Iceland 28 0,02%
Italy 4 199 3,26%
Lithuania 152 0,12%
Latvia 1 0,00%
Luxemburg 181 0,14%
Latvia 7 0,01%
Monaco 15 0,01%
Netherlands 7 799 6,06%
Poland 111 0,09%
Portugal 41 0,03%
Romania 8 0,01%
Sweden 2 486 1,93%
SIovenia 87 0,07%
Slovakia 16 0,01%
Turkey 68 0,05%
EPC 63 650 49,46%
Japan 21 461 16,68%
USA 32 738 25,44%
Other 10 830 8,42%
non EPC 65 029 50,54%
Total 128679 100,0%
Top applicants at the EPO
Among the ten largest applicants at the EPO there are four European compani=
es, three companies from Japan, two from Korea and one from the US:
Top Applicants at the EPO in 2005
Rank Company Count Share
1 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. 4173 3,2%
2 SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT 1548 1,2%
3 MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. 1194 0,9%
4 SONY CORPORATION 964 0,7%
5 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH 845 0,7%
6 NOKIA CORPORATION 683 0,5%
7 FUJITSU LIMITED 672 0,5%
8 BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT 669 0,5%
9 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 645 0,5%
10 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 617 0,5%
11 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GMBH 571 0,4%
12 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 507 0,4%
13 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 491 0,4%
14 THOMSON LICENSING 479 0,4%
15 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 462 0,4%
16 L'OREAL S.A. 448 0,3%
17 CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA 437 0,3%
18 DSM IP ASSETS B.V. 390 0,3%
19 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 388 0,3%
20 LG ELECTRONICS INC. 385 0,3%
21 SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION 383 0,3%
22 DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG 367 0,3%
23 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 356 0,3%
24 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED 353 0,3%
25 NEC CORPORATION 342 0,3%
The top 25 applicants represent about 18% of the patent applications filed =
with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the EPO are granted one =
patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the applicants receive more th=
an 50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan 2%).
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard: http://europa.=
eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&format=3DHTML&aged=
=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[2]
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard: http://europa.=
eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&format=3DHTML&aged=
=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[3]
Europe needs an effective IPT system
It is therefore demanding that the EU works upon its weaknesses and turns t=
hem into strengths. Even though the concrete scope and shape of IPR protect=
ion at the EU level is debateable, a sound and effective IPR framework shou=
ld aim to contribute to:
Better economic performance, through giving firms the right incentives to m=
ake new inventions and the financial strength to continue to develop furthe=
r innovation; More efficient dissemination of new knowledge and ideas, thro=
ugh encouraging intellectual property owners to publish their ideas and pla=
ce their inventions on the market; Better products and services, through co=
ntinuous product development, whilst at the same time safeguarding health a=
nd safety and environmental protection through conformity with market regul=
ations.
Community framework for patents is lacking
Proposals have been made, including one on the Community Patent, and anothe=
r on Computer Implemented Inventions. However, they have not yet received s=
ufficient political support to ensure their adoption. The adoption of the C=
ommunity patent would reduce the costs of patenting as well as increase leg=
al security for European enterprises in general. This would certainly contr=
ibute to a better protection of intellectual property in Europe. The Commis=
sion has recently started a consultation exercise on the Community patent a=
nd possible alternatives, such as the development of a European Patent Liti=
gation Agreement or the closer harmonisation and mutual recognition of Memb=
er State patents.
Reinforcing the IPR-culture throughout Europe
More also needs to be done however on awareness raising and supporting ente=
rprises, especially SMEs in valorising their intellectual property and usin=
g intellectual property rights. The Commission strives to encourage SMEs to=
valorise their intellectual property and make use of IPRs.
The Commission is undertaking a number of actions to assess what other supp=
ort measures can be taken. An Expert Group will draft policy recommendation=
s by end 2006, as part of the Commissions IPR-Initiative announced in the I=
ndustrial Policy Communication of autumn 2005. The recommendations will foc=
us on how barriers to the use of IPR can be removed and how the relation be=
tween IPR and innovation can be strengthened. A specific TrendChart Worksho=
p will validate these policy recommendations.
The policy recommendations will have three building blocks.
1. A special statistical report on IPR usage will further analyse how compa=
nies use IPR in different sectors, building upon the results of the Europea=
n Innovation Scoreboard. This report is foreseen for May 2006. 2. A report =
on barriers to the effective use of IPR will be produced by the Commissions=
Europe INNOVA. Sectoral Innovation Panels by June 2006. This Report will i=
dentify the reasons for companies using or not using intellectual property =
rights and possible policy measures in response. 3. A benchmarking study on=
publicly-funded IPR support services was launched in January 2006. It will=
identify all existing regional and national support measures for companies=
in the field of IPR, assess their efficiency and identify good practices.
Based on these elements, it will be possible to identify where companies ex=
perience difficulties, whether government measures address these issues and=
propose points for improvement.
Furthermore, a number of specific IPR initiatives in support of enterprises=
will be launched under PRO INNO Europe, which supports trans-national coop=
eration, including the European Design Prize and the project led by the Eur=
opean Patent Office on training the trainers in IPR support services.
PROTON Europe is a network of technology transfer offices linked to Public =
Research Organisations and Universities. It is supported by the EC under th=
e Gate2Growth initiative. A significant amount of top research with current=
or potential commercial relevance is undertaken in universities and resear=
ch institutions in Europe. The objective of PROTON is to boost the commerci=
al uptake of publicly funded R&D throughout Europe by further developing th=
e professional skills of their technology interface structures with industr=
y.
More information: www.protoneurope.org/[4]
The IPR Helpdesk provides free-of-charge basic guidance on intellectual pro=
perty issues to the stakeholders. Its main achievements are a range of mult=
ilingual tools: website, newsletter, topic documents. It also manages a fas=
t-reply helpline for individual queries.
More information: http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm[5]
Enforcing IPR in the fight against counterfeiting and product piracy
Counterfeiting is one of the major problems that the Commission has to cope=
with. From 2000 to 2005, customs seizures have increased by 1000%, while c=
ounterfeiting is no longer limited only to fashion and design articles, but=
is extended to medicines and electrical equipment. The enforcement of inte=
llectual property rights in third countries is more than ever critical. The=
Commissions actions include:
Close cooperation between Member States and the Commission must go on to co=
ntinuously improve our custom control system. Speedy and reliable informati=
on exchange between authorities from different Member States remains an imp=
ortant issue. Intensive cooperation between right-holders and customs autho=
rities Activities are ongoing under the Commissions action plan for an effi=
cient customs response to counterfeiting and piracy. The Commission has jus=
t proposed to introduce criminal law provisions to combat intellectual prop=
erty offences .
- IP/06/532[6]
=3D=3D=3DReferences:=3D=3D=3D
1. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/=
181&format=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
2. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21=
&format=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
3. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21=
&format=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
4. http://www.protoneurope.org/
5. http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm
6. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/53=
2&format=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Dfr
--
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k