Apple v Samsung: iJury

As most of you are aware Apple crushed Samsung in it's suit. Every patent of Apple's was upheld and Samsung owes Apple just a touch over $1Billion. This is going to do a great deal to chill innovation. Many other people are commenting that these patents and the idea of copying isn't new and that Apple has stolen a great deal themselves. In one discussion with an author at the Urban Times, he seemed to argue that the theft of these ideas is more honest than copying and that Apple was a better company for doing so. Well, there's a major flaw in that idea, the theft of an idea is essentially copying the idea, the only difference is you act as if it was always yours and that you didn't copy someone else.

One author thinks that one billion is a small price to pay to be the second largest mobile manufacturer in the world. While I understand the thinking behind this, sure they copied a great deal from Apple and it only cost them a portion of what it could have cost. However, this is a short sighted view. The manner in which Apple has attacked Samsung isn't going to stop and will likely intensify. The ruling in San Jose wasn't the only ruling that came in yesterday. In Korea a judge ruled that both companies were infringing each other and banned both products from being imported to the country. The judge also found that Samsung didn't copy and in the UK a judge also said that Samsung didn't copy and wasn't cool enough to be confused with an i Anything - ordering them to post it on their website.

The idea that Apple's design for the phone's desktop being unique is a bit absurd. They simply changed the way the buttons looked, but there had been interfaces that were extremely similar for years. I had a Sony Cliq PDA in 2001 and 2002 and some of the way that product looked was similar to the iPhone. Apple repackaged things extremely well. Judge Koh did not allow Samsung to present all the information to the jury related to prior art, which certainly didn't help Samsung's case (Samsung released it to the public though).

The other major issue with this case is the idea that laypeople can really understand the issues with patents. They are difficult to understand, written in legalese and intended to be so broad that they can be interpreted in many different ways. I've read through several patents and they quite frankly are confusing and in many cases don't convey the information they are required to convey (how to manufacture or build whatever is patented).

For a patent to be valid it only has three conditions to meet: Novel, which means that nothing like it has been done before; Non-Obvious, which means that (originally) that an expert in the field wouldn't see this as a natural extension of previous work; now it must be non-obvious to a layperson; the final one is the possibility of industrial application, this means that the technology must be useful in some way. Many of Apple's patents do not meet the threshold for the first two, novel or non-obvious. Now of course people that disagree will argue that in hindsight these patents are obvious because Apple did such a god job at inventing them. I disagree primarily because many of the patents are reapplication of ideas from the computer to the smart phone.

I'm extremely worried about the future of innovation in light of this ruling. I think that there will be serious repercussions and whatever comes out of this will be terrible for consumers.

Finally check out this video discussing what Apple has invented:

A bit remiss

Sorry dear readrs, I've been very bad about writing any blogs lately. I've had some pretty big changes in the past two months as you all know. I've moved back from the Netherlands to the US, did some consulting work and I just started a job at AMD. Consequently, I've not been able to post as much as I have in the past. Big changes have been happening in my life.

Because of these changes I wasn't able to pay enough attention to the CISPA fiasco that just occurred in the US. This law is a terrible step in the direction of data tyranny. I'm even being hyperbolic about this either. I wrote about the risks of having a voluntary data sharing program and in my review of Consent of the Networked I discussed the different data and Government regimes out in the "wild." These concerns are valid. We need to be aware of what's going on. Now, I have to say we pretty much blew our collective internet protest load with the SOPA/PIPA protests. Which is actually a problem. I would hazard that in many ways CISPA is as bad or worse than SOPA, however I didn't see as much chatter about CISPA on reddit, twitter, Google+ or Facebook about CISPA as I did about SOPA.

I think there are a few reasons for this actually. First, the majority of the people were able to clearly understand the risks associated with SOPA. These risks are pretty straight forward and understandable. These risks affect us tomorrow not in some future time period. In many ways SOPA like acts can already happen today. This makes it extremely obvious why SOPA/PIPA are terrible laws and should be opposed at many levels. Second, with CISPA coming so quickly after the SOPA/PIPA protests there was likely something of a protest overload or disbelief that another law could come through so quickly that is as bad or worse than SOPA. Especially with the language that was being used at the time of SOPA. It would have broken the Internet, how could anything be worse than that? Third, there was more support by large companies for this law than for SOPA. Apparently that actually matters more than we realized. We were able to push Wikipedia, Facebook, and other large companies to protest this law. However in this case Facebook and Microsoft supported the law while Google sat on the sideline saying nothing about the law.

I think from this stand point, people that weren't happy with CISPA but didn't understand the importance likely didn't do anything about it. However, whenever a fantastic website like Wikipedia blacks out in protest for a law it will get people who are only on the fence about the law to actually do something about the law.

CISPA and SOPA are both bad but in very different ways. CISPA is something of an abstraction of risk. Losing your privacy when so many people already voluntarily give up so much information about themselves on Facebook and Twitter might not seem like as big of a deal. The secondary abstraction is a lack of understanding of the impact of the data sharing. It's unclear of what exactly the Feds would do with the data once they have it. It's unclear how data sharing would occur within the government. However, it is likely that the data would be shared throughout the government including the military. Which many privacy experts are say essentially legalizes military spying on US civilians. The third problem is that many people also feel that if you aren't doing something wrong you don't have anything to worry about. However, this is a fallacy as even people who are doing things that aren't wrong can get in trouble. I've discussed the cases where people are fired for posting drunken pictures on Facebook. Additionally, this type of law represents the biggest of the big government that we can imagine. There's no reason why the government needs to know what we're doing in this level of detail.

It's going to be a long and difficult fight to keep our internet free. However, it's something that we must do and I believe we can do it. We will just need to keep vigilant and work together to ensure that our internet stays our internet.

Loss of dignity when arrested?

Today the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that it's OK for prison officials to decide to strip search someone once arrested. In the case in question a man was wrongfully arrested and in two different prisons within the span of a week was required to strip and display himself to a guard. Kennedy argued that if guards had the ability to strip search anyone pulled over or arrested it is likely that Timmy McVey or one of the 9/11 terrorists would have been stopped ahead of time, as they were arrested days before they committed a crime.

This line of thinking is a very dangerous slippery slope. If we start allowing these unreasonable searches after a traffic violation arrest where is the stopping? At what point will it be allowable to strip search someone after a traffic violation with no arrest? While that's one direction this could go the other direction has research and very recent photographic evidence.

What I'm talking about is the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Gharib. The Stanford Prison experiment is famous for the fact that it finished early due to the brutality of the "prison guards." In the experiment a random selection of students were split between prisoner and prison guard. Over the course of a few days, the guards and prisoners started to really get into their role to the point that there were serious behavior changes. In fact many of the guards became extremely sadistic to the "prisoners" including beating them and abusing them emotionally. Due to the change in the behavior the experiment ended.

During the Iraq war photo evidence was released that showed systemic abuse that was at least on some level condoned by military and civil authority in the Pentagon. The abuse was used as a way to debase and demoralize the "terrorists," which is not to say that some of them weren't actual terrorists but there were innocents. These actions likely started harmlessly enough as strip searches and other activities. However, they escalated into pictures of naked pyramids.

Using these two historic cases as a back drop I think that we can see that there is great potential for abuse and escalation of these sorts of activities. It is well known that torture doesn't really give us the information we need and it is unlikely that the next McVey or 9/11 terrorist will have something on them at the time of a random street arrest unless they are actively en route to their destination. In the case of the 9/11 terrorist the strip search would have likely found a box cutter and luggage for a trip. It's unclear how if he would have been arrested it would have turned up enough evidence to put him away for life.

I am extremely disappointed with the SCOTUS with this ruling. While I understand some of the rational for the ruling, it seems heavy handed and likely to lead to abuses rather than the results the Court wishes to find.

Protecting the internet

As I mentioned in my blog post from yesterday, the internet is extremely important. We all know that. It's fun to use it's become an incredibly important part of our economy and will continue to grow in general importance. In some ways Thomas Friedman is correct in the book the World is Flat, the internet has increased the ability for people all over the world to compete in the same way. However, where he goes wrong is that he assumes that this flattening and economic importance will protect the internet.

Unfortunately this isn't the case. We, the users of the internet, will have to continually work to protect the internet from special interest groups that seek to control its use. We have seen this in the US with SOPA/PIPA and with ACTA in Europe (And now Trans Pacific Partnership). A small group of companies in an industry that isn't really able to innovate is attempting to dominate the manner in which the internet is being used. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, there are already more agreements in the works. The most recent in the US is a bill being pushed by our dear friend Lamar Smith from Texas. Yup, same guy that did SOPA he's pushing a law that will require all ISPs to collect data on their users and store it for over 6 months. In addition websites are going to be required to collect similar data. The goal of the bill is to prevent child pornography.

This type of law is also being considered in Canada and there was a recent protest where a twitter user was pretending to be Vic Toews. This has rather upset Mr. Toews an MP there. However, these bills essentially destroy any sort of privacy on the internet. In many cases web companies simply hand over data to law enforcement agencies and governments without any need for a warrant or a court order. Twitter is one of the few companies that puts up a fight about user data. As users we really don't know how often our data is being handed over to any sort of governmental organization.

In addition to these individual laws and treaties China and Russia want the UN to become a governing body over the internet. I think this is a very interesting idea, however with the two countries that are pushing this change it also has cause for concern. Both of these countries really work to control the access of information for their respective peoples. A treaty at this level may make it more difficult for individual country's industries really impact laws relating to the internet and freedom. I am going to be watching this very carefully.

As users we need to be aware of these sorts of developments and make sure that we are active in protecting the thing we all love and use on a regular basis. The internet.

Did yesterday's internet black out save the internet?

I've seen a lot of commentary about how the web may have been saved because of the internet's "abuse of power." How parts of the internet shut down for a day. I'm sure this impacted a great deal of people, may have actually hurt our economy a little bit. However, one day of action won't save the internet.

I'll agree it made a huge impact as support for SOPA/PIPA has plummeted. Yes, this round of attack by the MPAA and RIAA may have been twarted, but this is just the beginning of the fight for the internet. Ars Technica, has an excellent write up for a plan for how to address some of the concerns of copyright holders in a much better fashion. A manner which would not destroy the internet like SOPA/PIPA.

However, I think that this is a case of industrial policy legislation that is picking winners. In several blogs and posts at the Urban Times, I have written in favor of using some policies to enact changes of behavior. However, in these cases it's because a novel technology isn't being adopted that leads to benefits for the social good. In the case of copyright holders, these policies aren't for the common good, but are being put into place to protect an aging business model that is not innovative. The policies I recommend are to help innovators compete against the status quo.

Data has shown that increasing the availability or decreasing the availability impacts the rate of piracy for television shows. Which indicates to me, policies should be striving to push companies to increase access to copyrighted material, not to go after pirating website. The responsibility for dealing with pirates should be with the copyright holder. They have the means to actually reduce piracy through reducing the amount of licensing fees and increasing accessibility.

We should be pushing our government leaders to put initiatives in places that require massive concessions from copyright holders, if they abuse their copyright position, including losing that copyright. Subscription services like Spotify and Pandora allow users to get access to content either free, with ads, or for a small price. However, these services don't allow users to access everything. This leads to frustration. If I was able to listen to whatever on Spotify, there'd be no reason to pirate.

What does this mean? Well, we can celebrate the change in positions of congressional members, however this isn't over yet. OPEN act may be the next step in this battle. Free internet should be our goal, free as in speech not beer. However, people are willing to pay and I think in this case, business models need to catch up with technology.

Which bill is worse NDAA or SOPA?

I was posed this interesting question by my friend Jurriën, which bill is worse the most recent NDAA or SOPA. What is the NDAA? Well it's a yearly bill called the National Defense Authorization Act, however there were some incredibly important changes to this years bill. This years NDAA turned the United States into a battle field and gave the US government the right to arrest anyone for any reason. It also includes provisions for allowing the indefinite detention of any US citizen. Something like this has already occurred with the PATRIOT Act, which allowed the President to go after so called "enemy combatants." Most of these prisoners are currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

What does this bill mean to you and me? Well, the basic argument is if you're doing nothing wrong it won't impact you. However, I see in this bill the potential to return to McCarthyism at it's worst. Only instead of Communists we'll be seeing terrorists everywhere. Likely it could eventually lead to oppression of anyone that appears to be Arabic, Pakistani, Afghan, or similar skin tone. This type of power is ripe for abuse and might be extended to fight the "War on Drugs" as many of those groups are essentially terrorists in Mexico.

What about SOPA? I've written about that fairly extensively, but tomorrow we're going to get to see a preview of what life might be like under SOPA. Tomorrow Reddit, Wikipedia, imgur and many other smaller websites are going to black out all of their content. Nothing will be readable as a protest against the law. In addtion, the Senate counter part PIPA (Protect IP act) is up for a hearing on Jan 24 so be sure to contact your Senator. 

Both laws I think are going to be abused by the US government and by agencies that are given additional powers. In many ways they are similar in that they restrict our Constitutional Rights as Americans. We will lose our 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury and our 8th Amendment Rights, which prohibits excessive, cruel and unusual punishments. Based on this, Chris Hedges has sued Obama over the passing of this bill. This might have a good chance of succeeding in overturning the law.

SOPA/PIPA aren't on the books yet. I think that we can prevent these two from passing and will for a time save the internet. It will take a lot of continual effort and we will have to remain vigilant against surprise sessions where they attempt to pass the laws.

I worry that the NDAA will not be revoked in its current form and will be used to dramatically harm US citizens. Additionally, I fear any attempt to link SOPA/PIPA to national defense which would surely pass. So at this point, NDAA is worse only because it has passed. Once SOPA/PIPA pass, the three combined could be a nightmare for us, but a dream come true for dictators around the world. What could we say to future Saddam's when they are able to point to US law and say, you can do it why can't we?

Data protection, anonymity and copyright

I talk a great deal on this blog about data issues, privacy and ownership, anonymity and copyright, however is there a clear connection between them? Should we care about who has access to our data, who we are and control over our access to data?

I think that these issues are so connected that we need to do something about how they are managed at a federal level. Currently, it's rather easy for governments to request data from internet sites. Some times they require warrants or court orders other times the companies simply hand over the data. Savvy users understand how their data is collected and used by companies. I'll be the first to admit that I'm learning about this as I'm going. It's not easy because some times it's really inconvenient to really protect your data. The more sites that are connected together the more likely one of your accounts are to be hacked. Linking sites also creates other problems. Specifically Facebook and Google. Twitter isn't as bad, but it easily could be.

Why are Facebook and Google bad though? First Facebook is the worst by far. Both Zuckerbergs have made statements proclaiming privacy a bad thing.We can see this erosion with the creation of Facebook's OpenGraph and seamless information sharing. We've all see the increase in the amount of information that our friends are sharing. Such as Spotify and articles they've read. Which now no longer click through, but end up going to some app from that company. All of this information is being stored and sold to customers with your name on it. Effectively you've lost your ability to view websites freely without it being stored on multiple servers by multiple companies at the same time.
Google comes in a close second with their privacy problems. They aren't any better with Google+ as they require names at this time. We also don't know what Google does with the information that you give them when you link accounts together. By giving access to Google when you sign into another website Google is learning more about you which will likely be used to adjust your filter bubble.

Without anonymity or at least pseudonymity it's significantly more difficult to control access to your data. Putting a buffer between you and the people that are interested in learning about you as a person can protect you from a lot of bad people. However, whenever there are discussions about anonymity or pseudonyms some one almost always makes the argument that it will increase the safety for child molesters or terrorists.

The Copyright industry is one of the most vocal advocates of this tactic. In fact, this is one of the arguments being used for SOPA. They argue that if you don't have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Well, I don't buy that argument. People have privacy fences for a reason around their yard. Why not do the same thing for your data? Being anonymous doesn't mean your bad, it just means your being safe.

Anonymity makes it more difficult for copyright holders to come after people who download movies without buying the movie. They want to know if your downloading it regardless of the fact that you might actually own the movie in some other physical medium and are using the digital copy as a back up. They also don't really care if you go out and buy the movie after watching it. In fact the Swiss government came out and said that buying a movie or song after downloading is extremely common.

Based on these three points, I believe that everyone should be pushing leaders to increase the ability for users to be anonymous on the internet. This will protect users data from identity theft, allow users better control over their data and decrease the impact of the filter bubble. We must accept the fact that people may use the freedom in unethical ways. However, this doesn't mean that it's unethical for people to be anonymous online and doesn't mean that they are unethical. It means that we need to define clear laws and procedures to deal with unethical or illegal activities in these systems. Without these guidelines we are likely to have no control over our data.

Innovation and government regulation

Yesterday during a short twitter discussion the topic of US governmental policies killing new business starts came up. With the 140 characters I wasn't able to property address the issue that was raised. It is extremely clear that SOPA is an innovation killer, because it effectively requires everyone to have a copyright lawyer on staff at the start of any sort of web company. If you have pictures, video, commentary or whatever on your site you'll possibly be the target of some copyright holder. This policy isn't in place and appears, for the moment, to be killed. I expect this law to be resurrected in a year or so. Despite the face that the EU adopted a resolution against SOPA.

Let's look beyond SOPA though, what other policies are in place that seem to prevent job growth? One of the biggest ones right now is tax levels for people making $250,000 or more. Politifact did an analysis of Congressman Boehner's claim that taxing millionaires hurts small businesses and prevents hiring. They found this statement to be False. Of course this does depend on the definition of a small business, which Politifact expresses is difficult to define. One metric that I'm aware of is based off the annual sales, where sales over $500,000/year moves you out of the small business area. This may not be the best amount, but let's say your company has sales of $3,000,000 a year and has enough profit to pay you $1,000,000 of that a year. This tells me that you aren't reinvesting and trying to continue to grow your firm, probably aren't paying your employees very well. Additionally, at this amount of sales it is likely that as an entrepreneur you've had to get capital investment in one of several ways, loans or from venture capital. A bank wouldn't care if you were getting paid a million a year, but there's no way a VC would allow you to pay yourself that if they weren't getting a good size chunk of money too and you were still planning on reinvesting in the future enough to get a huge IPO. Now, if you've built this company from the ground up to this level on your own, then you aren't paying yourself that kind of money. You would have to be re-investing that money back into the firm to get new equipment hiring the best people, etc.

Another way for companies to get started is through spin-off from another company, bootstrapping themselves to get going or spinning-out of a university. I have an article that will come out soon in the Urban times that addresses some policies that can help with the creation of Spin-outs and start-ups. In the US, we still have the best policies for this. The EU as a collective and European countries are modeling many of their intellectual property laws and funding methods off of US policies. A few examples are a very similar law to the Dole-Bayh law from the 80's to allow universities to own IP and to give it to their employees if they wish. The creation of technology incubators - this was a truly American innovation, innovation prize contests and national seed funds. The continual reinvention of these policies in the US allows us to create more new companies than European counterparts from a variety of sources.

Are there other policies that hurt the creation of companies? Yes, sure. I'm sure there are some pollution regulations that negatively impact the survival rate of firms. However, from a purely economic perspective this regulation is forcing the company to internalize the cost of the negative externality. Which the company should innovate to reduce the amount of pollution they are creating or buy equipment that reduces their costs in other ways. Innovation to reduce pollution should reduce the cost of raw materials, because they are being used more efficiently and in lower quantities. Every company wants to be able to reduce the amount of raw materials they use. In the next few years we will see greener companies, not because they have a desire to be sustainable, but because it's more profitable. The regulations the EPA puts into place requires companies to internalize negative externalities, which from both a evolutionary and neo-classical economic perspective is expected from the market and when the market fails then and only then the government needs to step in.

There will be regulations that are industry specific that may slow the amount of innovation and creation of firms, but some of that is surely death by a thousand paper cuts (too much paper work) and the inability to figure out a way to acquire enough funds to get the company going. Compared to European countries the US is the leader for ease of firm creation and the EU is still playing catch up in that regard.

Router = Computer

According to the online magazine Techeye.net an ADSL modem/router is considered by a German court. The dispute is over if a user is allowed to install software that changes the ADSL modem's firewall settings. It was actually a battle between two companies, the company that makes the router and the company making software for the router. I think that this ruling has some extremely interesting implications.

First, by defining a router as a computer it opens the door for a HUGE number of devices to be defined as a computer. Most of us wouldn't think of a router as a computer. It's a switch, it has a very specific purpose of deciding which packet gets through to the network at a given time and to prevent congestion on the network. In this case, it has the additional function of pulling out the high speed data from the phone line as well. It does have a user interface, but it's typically restricted to a web browser. This is hardly something the average user would consider a computer. Which tells me something about the judge in the case - he understands technology and computing. The US and rest of Europe could use more judges like this.

Second, since a broad range of devices are now considered devices, at least in Germany, it could force companies to open up their hardware to user software manipulation. I see a few areas where I think this will cause major companies problems.

The first would be video game consoles. If a router is considered a computer there is no way that a company could argue that a video game console is not a computer. Consider the following, you are able to install software video games onto the console, you actually interact with an operating system, you are able to browse the internet and of course play games on the console. These are all things you are able to do on your PC. There are more restrictions on the console than the PC of course. Now, let's say a third party company wants to come along and create something that will allow you to increase the functionality of the software or the machine in someway. In Germany, the user should have the right to do that.

The second would be cell phones. It's pretty obvious that cellphones are computers and this ruling would just cement that. I think this will cause more problems for iOS than for Android. For two reasons, first Android already allows third party app stores onto the devices which increases the control of the end user over the computer. Second, Apple controls what software can be allowed into the app store thus controlling what a user is able to install on their computer. The German ruling basically says that a company cannot stop a user from installing software onto their computer if they want to install it. Apple and the App store are directly controlling what a user can and cannot install onto their device. I would not be surprised if this type of control is challenged in the German courts.

One other implications could be that as you own the computer user may be able to stop companies from remotely installing software onto their computer they don't want on there. For instance, in the US it's not uncommon for Verizon Wireless to push software out to specific devices without notifying you. You are giving implicit consent by using their networks. However, if the same thing happened to my PC from Comcast there would be a law suit. Since phones are in a weird quasi state of rights in the US there isn't the same sort of feelings. However, I believe as the gap between PC and phones close and the desire to control what goes on the phone and what doesn't increases there will be lawsuits over installing and deleting software from your computer.

Are democracies or autocracies better with technology Management?

According to neoclassical economics knowledge is a non-rival (I can use it without preventing you from using it) and non-exclusive (available to everyone) resource. This has two impacts on their economic theory. First, the actual impact of research and development is excluded from economic growth and is ignored. Second, that any company should be able to pick up and produce any technology. Both of these points are relatively ridiculous. For two reasons. First, we know that research leads to the formation of new companies. Second we know that most companies cannot produce any product and many companies that produce products outside their expertise fail at it.

From a neoclassical perspective democracies are terrible at sharing knowledge and technologies. Democracies have a slew of laws that regulate access to technology form monopolies for specific technologies if they have something called a patent. Additionally, there are other contracts that can get in the way of sharing of knowledge in a way that is neoclassical. Non-disclosure agreements and non-compete clauses. If you aren't allowed to discuss a specific technology with other people, it prevents knowledge from spreading and being shared to other companies. If you aren't allowed to compete within the same industry after you leave a company, it prevents you from using that knowledge in a positive way at another firm.

These laws have been put into place in our democracies to ensure proper protection of technologies for firms. It's designed to prevent the spreading of tacit knowledge from company A to company B. As a company this is incredibly desirable. Without these protections some research would be worthless to conduct. Knowledge spill-overs would cause prices to fall to cost or lower as firms compete for market share. It's great for consumers, but bad for firms.

So what happens in China? Well according to Make it in America, China requires many firms to hand over their Intellectual Property to the Chinese state. What ends up happening after this is that the Chinese government sells the information or gives the information to one or more Chinese company. These companies tend to be made up of former employees at the company that made the product before. This allows tacit knowledge transfer to the firm and a fast ramp to compete directly with the inventor of the technology. The knowledge is freer in China than it is in the US because of this. This increases competition and may be impacting the cost of goods like solar panels.

In a way this type of behavior forces companies to compete based on the actual costs of the technology. This is what is expected in the neoclassical theory. All prices will eventually drop to the marginal cost of a product with near zero profits for the producing company. In a perverse way, this is a "freer" market than ours because it comes closer to the non-rival non-exclusive knowledge base.

In my next blog, I'll discuss this topic more.

The ACTA has been signed

For those of you who aren't aware the US and many other countries have signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA. This law provides a legal framework for nations across the world to enact something similar to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This framework gives additional control to law enforcement and copyright holders. Something also abnormal about this trade agreement is that the US claims that it doesn't need congressional approval. I find this extremely odd, as it's part of the charter of the legislative branch to approve trade agreements. Additionally, as I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand what's inherently different in the ACTA from the South Korean Free Trade Agreement, which has been stalled since Bush II.

At this point the EU hasn't signed the agreement yet. France and Germany have both enacted some already strict laws in regard to the number of strikes an infringer can have before they lose internet connections.Of course there are some serious issues with the approaches that are used to accuse copyright infringers. most of them deal with how to identify a suspected infringer. At this time France's first three strike infringer doesn't know how to do that. Additionally, in Germany, where a legislator wants a 2 strike law, the same legislator has already violated this before the law has gone into affect.

I believe that these cases really indicate that legislator really don't understand how the internet and copyright works. It's clear from the DMCA that they don't and neither do judges. However, I think that Judges are starting to seriously figure out what's going on with copyright and the controls that are being put into place. Recently in several districts judges have severed joint cases of copyright cases, because most of the IP addresses, which are typically associated to a region or city, were outside the jurisdiction of the court they are being tried in. Additionally, some judges are noting that IP addresses aren't people and other people could be using the IP address. Even more recently a judge writes that in the DMCA suggest if you own a DVD it's ok to rip it.Which is something that the DMCA is trying to prevent. DMCA was design to prevent circumventing the copy blocking technologies. It made it illegal.

Overall, the ACTA is a huge blow for advocates of reducing or eliminating copyright. I seriously hope that if this trade agreement does have to go through the US congress that it will be rejected. It's a law that doesn't take into account the current technologies and what culture really means.

Fortunately, not all governments support the ACTA. In fact Brazil has created an interesting framework that is the antithesis of ACTA. It is designed to support privacy, encourage usage of Creative Commons copyright(left) protection and have true net neutrality.

Antitrust and Cell Phones

In my last three posts (one, two and three) I have been discussing the risks of antitrust for Google. With Android Google controls what applications are installed as the base as well as the search function. In South Korea apparently this is a big deal. Which took me the points of IE and WMP in my last post. Most people use the default programs on their computer or phones unless they have some external reasoning to use a different product. In the case of iTunes and WMP it was the iPod which drove the usage away from the default. However for many people that don't have an iPod there isn't much point is using anything else. Especially if you only play CDs on your computer or you have a very small MP3 collection.

There are, of course, other factors which may drive users to other products, such as seeking the ability to play lossless files instead of MP3s. On computers, in my opinion, it is much easier to take control over the device and install other applications or systems to replace the default. You just need to know how to find the program you want and install it. With phones this is much more difficult. I think that the Google Search functionality is going to be the first of many of these investigations.

For other applications that serve the same function as the search, it may be difficult to acquire a different app. At the app store for whatever phone you're using, there's a gate keeper (is there a confused keymaster too?). In the case of Apple they reject applications that duplicate a program which comes preinstalled on the phone. I'm fully expecting that these rejections will eventually become the target of some antitrust investigation. Google is better than Apple in this regard, however there is control over what goes into the app store. Interesting note there are at least 4 Bing search apps in the Android market place.

Google does allow third party app stores on Android. I think that this is a really smart move. This will actually prevent some future antitrust investigation that I think Apple will have to face. There will be a market of app market places that cater to different kinds of needs or may be phone company specific. For instance Samsung has their own app store on my Galaxy S. I would not be surprised if Steam, EA and other digital content providers are already planning on creating app stores for the phones. While some of the major game developers aren't creating games for phones yet, I believe that will change in the future. With Windows 8 going to be used for PCs, Tablets, and phones why wouldn't larger game developers created stripped down versions of their games to be played on phones?

However, I've wandered a bit from my initial point. While phones are different than computers in some pretty significant ways, they are small computers. They are more powerful than the computers I grew up with. Google will need to be aware of this and will need to evolve how it deals with the android system. The controls put on users in phones will eventually be forced out of existence by law suits and users demanding more freedom over their phones. Eventually, phones will require as much freedom as a PC, especially as we start to bridge between the two platforms.

Google's Anti-Trust problems III

In my last two posts (one and two), I've been discussing the current problems as well as potential problems that will be facing Google in the antitrust arena. Yesterday I mentioned I was going to discuss Windows Media Player (WMP) and how this pertains to Google. However, I realized I need to go one step back first. First, we need to look at what happened with Netscape and Internet Explorer (IE). Initially Netscape was THE internet browser. It was the browser to program websites to be displayed on, IE wasn't even really on the radar. Also, at this time with the web, these programs were being sent out by CD, it would take an extremely long time to down load this application. Why? because it was over a telephone line. A modem that was getting about a tenth or less of the download speed you have now with whatever your broadband connection is. That and your mom would probably pick up the phone to call some one while you were trying to download the software, or while playing War Craft 2 against a friend.

Since the medium of delivery for the browser was over CD it was a level playing field for both browsers to compete. You'd get one in the mail for whatever browser, Netscape, IE, AOL, etc. However, Microsoft realized the importance of this market. They figured out a way to leverage their desktop monopoly to foreclose on the browser market. They started installing IE onto all of their operating systems. Then went as far to integrate everything together to ensure market dominance. It worked because of slow connections and the fact that people are lazy. If something already works they will use it.

Flash forward about 5 years. MP3s have gotten popular through Napster and other digital Peer 2 Peer file transfer systems and the next big market is music players. Winamp was a major player at this time and WMP was not really any sort of competition for it either. In Windows XP WMP got a major over haul and was at least able to compete with Winamp. Microsoft decided to bundle the software in the same manner they had done with IE.

This is where the story changes though. The EU filed suite against this claiming this was anticompetitive. At this time the iPod had just come out and there was no reason to expect the product to come to the PC. It seemed like it was a long way from happening. Plus, even if the iPod was going to PC it was still going to be a niche market. So, the law suit. We all know now that because of the pace of technology and the fact that there were other factors involved with the selection of the music player it prevented market dominance of Microsoft. Without the requirement for iTunes with the iPod who knows what player would have won the market.

How does this relate to Google though? Well, looking at the search engine suit from Korea I mentioned yesterday, I think this has some pretty significant implications. Using a platform to control the method in which you use other functions can be shown to be anticompetitive. Google search engine is the first for mobile phones, however, I see no reason why it will be the last.

More on this topic in my next blog.

Software Patents are the new Copyright

In one of my previous posts I commented that I was seeing a convergence withing copyright activities. I believe that something just as horrible is starting to happen within the software patent world. I think that it will threaten the free software movement as well. We've had patent trolls around for a long time now. Almost since the first patent was created, however, this didn't interact with our daily lives. It was similar to the way that copyright didn't affect you and me on a daily basis. Sure, changes in prices or the removal of a product could affect us, but typically we were able to find a replacement or dealt with the price change. However, I think that this new type of patent troll is more dangerous. Yesterday I saw a post on Ars Technica discussing how Lodsys is going after Apple app developers. Apple isn't happy about this at all, because it threatens to ruin the base they have developed.

I think there are some other problems with this as well. Historically, if a company, that produces software, was looking to go for an IPO or bought by another company there's a thing called due dilligence, where the products are checked for stolen code. This is a big deal, because if I stole the code from Linux or some other open source software, my entire project falls under the GPL, and forces my source code to become open as well. This can create massive headaches for companies.

There is a key difference between what used to happen in the past and what is happening now. Before it was the method of making something happened that mattered. For example if I took a really fast way to sort something from open source how it was sorted was what mattered, not that it sorted. Why does this matter? Well the code is also technically copyrighted and owned by the writer. Now the outcome matters as well. What if some one had a patent on sorting. I've mentioned how crazy this would have been in the past and how this would impact innovation.

Let's say some one decided to put in for a patent on shooting animals at some sort of target through a controlled interface. Once the animal hit the target the animal interacted with the target which changed the user interface to indicate that the change had occurred. I have two games on my phone right now, Angry Birds and Monkey Blaster that would both be impacted by this patent. Both of them have very different goals and methods for shooting an animal at a target and different results once it hits the target. Indeed, the definition of target is different between these two games. However, neither of these developers are going to be looking for patents when they have an idea about what's the next game they want to make.

The patent that is mentioned in the Ars article is absurd. It should never have been approved. There's nothing novel in the development of the in app purchase. That is something that should be obvious from any one in the computer industry. You could easily see the relationship between a website and an application. In fact, I'm sure that there have been cases of this in the past. Another question that remains to be seen is this going to impact services like Steam? The article notes that Lodsys has already gone after EA.

This change in behavior towards apps and software patents is a very bad change. We need to work to address these types of problems. Returning to the requirement of producing a product to have on the market within a certain number of years could help address these problems. However for software this will likely just lead to a crappy product put on the market that no one buys and no one knows about.

The value of a Copyright

Just to make it clear, I'm going to say that there is some merit behind some copyright. A way to ensure a return on effort spent to produce the piece of work. That being said, it should not be the same right for every piece produced.

I don't really need any sort of scientific survey to look into part of this. Most copyrighted material is absolutely worthless. However, is it afforded the same protection as a major blockbuster movie, for free. Depending on how I structure the copyright of this blog, it has the same protection as Transformers 3. Why? To me this doesn't make any sense. Which is why I've decided to license my blog with a creative commons license. You can see it down at the bottom. However, I still got that copyright with no effort for myself. I have to do nothing to keep that copyright. 

The arts, sciences and technologies have had a strong interaction on each other throughout human history. We can see this with how our arts are pushing our technological limits. Video games push the limits of personal computers, recording studios push the limits of audio equipment and flawless video push the limits of TV and cameras. However, for any piece of art that was created on any of these technologies, they are afforded much more protection than the technology. The art also gains this protection for free, without any effort, whereas the technology has to go through a great deal of work to prove its worthy of the protection. 

As much as I would like to remove the auto guarantee of state protection on a work, I don't think that's feasible. However, I do think what is feasible and realistic is implementing a registration requirement for works older than a year old. This minimum level of effort demonstrates, at least to the owner, there is value in the copyright. If the content creator fails in this, the work should fall into the public domain. Thus freeing the vast majority of our culture from copyright. 

In the patent system there is a minimum cost for renewing the protection each year, which is considered the minimum value of a patent. This scale is graduated so that the the longer you want the protection the more expensive it is. For most firms this isn't really that much money. I think we need to add something like this for copyright. However, our current copyright length is extremely long. Which brings us to another point, after 20 years, which is the maximum allowable protection length for a technical discovery, the yearly rates should be exorbitant. In the last 10 years the copyright should cost more than $1,000,000 per year to manage. There will be firms that are willing to pay it, but it will be a difficult choice. Because it would be for every single copyright. This would quickly reduce the numbers of items within copyright protection.

I also think that there should be a payment difference for levels of protection. So this goes a bit to the different types of creative commons licenses out there. However, I think the most basic cheapest level of protection is required source acknowledgement if remixed, and the right to license out the work. Anything more than that would be extra money. So, if you didn't want it remixed for profit you would have to pay a significant amount of money more. Again, this is per copyright. There wouldn't be any blocks for works on a CD as each song can be sold separately, which would require a separate registration. 

I think with a system such as this we would quickly understand what the true value of a copyright actually is. At this point we have an artificially high valuation of copyrighted material based upon an extremely small subset of copyrighted material. From my previous post on the value of patents, we saw that most patents were barely able to cover the value of owning the patent. Additionally, most wouldn't cover the cost of litigation. 

We need to come to accept that most of our art at some point becomes economically worthless, if it ever was. That's not to say it's not emotionally full of worth, however, we can only truly understand that value when we have easy open access to it.

Further Reading:

Free Culture Lawrence Lessig: http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html (Free ebook)