My first thought was: Prof Correa, it is but natural for an Indian to think "binary". After all, Information Technology (IT), which put us on the world economic map for the first time is all about being "binary"! But jokes apart, anyone reading the TEG's terms of reference in a straightforward, logical manner will fail to see it as anything but "binary". Perhaps this misreading of the terms of reference comes out of intrinsic differences between Argentine English and Indian English?
Unfortunately, I cannot post the ET article on the blog for another 2-3 days. For those of you who wish to read it, it is on page 15 of today's Eco Times (Delhi edition). You can also try and access it online here.. though not in an optimal readable format.
ps: Prashant Reddy wrote a very persuasive piece exposing the flaws of a commentary that attempted to draw a misleading distinction between the terms "limiting" and "excluding". I also address this specious distinction in the ET piece above.
2. Despite my best efforts, I'm unable to find a credible "IP" peg for the Naz Foundation judgment dealing with section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminalisation of homosexuality in India.
So for those of you who want a small break away from the "natural" world of IP to the "unnatural world" of section 377, see this post of mine on LAOT, where I co-blog.
Incidentally, Venkatesan, a journalist with the Frontline and the key force behind LAOT has written a superb piece on the Tirupati Laddu case, which Sumathi referenced earlier.