{"id":2047,"date":"2013-07-31T15:33:33","date_gmt":"2013-07-31T15:33:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/?page_id=2047"},"modified":"2013-07-31T15:41:44","modified_gmt":"2013-07-31T15:41:44","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-3-free-software-epistemics\/peer-reviewed-papers\/free-software-and-the-law-out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-fire-how-shaking-up-intellectual-property-suits-competition-just-fine\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Free software and the law)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Review by Andrea Rossato, University of Trento<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong>
\nYes, the paper focuses on the relationship between traditional competition law and the increasing use of the Free\/Open-source paradigm in the software industry. It analyses the economic foundation of competition law and tries to assess the impact of commons-based peer production on consumers\/users welfare with regards to cartels and mergers when free\/open-source software is involved.<\/p>\n

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong>
\nThe treatment of the subject matter is interesting and original. No essential bodies of literature are left out, even though some interesting and critical contributions to intellectual property (Mark Lemley, Lawrence Lessig, Julie Cohen, just to cite a few of them) could have been used in order to criticise the economic foundations of intellectual property as explained by neoclassical economics. But since these issues are not entirely central to the paper’s main arguments, that missing literature may not be deemed essential.<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong>
\nNo.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/strong>
\nYes.<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong>
\nNo.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Review by Anonymous Reviewer<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong>
\nYes, the subject is in line with the call for paper. In particular, the questions on the assumptions of the neo-liberal legal systems into which FS has been developed and is now flourishing is particularly interesting and relevant.<\/p>\n

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong>
\nAbsolutely yes, the approach looks like novel and fresh. In my knowledge, as a sociologists, I would have loved to have a more extensive look at socio-anthropological literature on \u201clicenses in practice\u201d, like one of the chapters of Christopher Kelty (2008), Gabriella Coleman (2012) or the strict debate on licenses, like De Paoli, Teli, D’Andrea, 2008. Few references to philosophical theories of the contemporary can be included, like Agamben, Negri, etc…<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong>
\nNo. Nevertheless, I would like to see the conclusions extended, as well as the making explicit the research question in the first part of the paper.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/strong>
\nYes.<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong>
\nPlease, expand the conclusions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review by Andrea Rossato, University of Trento 1) Is the subject matter relevant? Yes, the paper focuses on the relationship between traditional competition law and the increasing use of the Free\/Open-source paradigm in the software industry. It analyses the economic foundation of competition law and tries to assess the impact<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"parent":1893,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2047"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2047"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2055,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2047\/revisions\/2055"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}