A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
Here’s another technology for which the adoption rate may be a decade longer than folks think — "cloud computing," like Google Apps. Google’s Right, but Cloud Computing’s Timeline Isn’t So Clear [Coop’s Corner]. Superb idea, but there are bandwidth, security, availability and reliability issues to be addressed before CIOs will adopt this model for the enterprise market. Already, however, it appears that the threat of this future, server-based computing architecture can be felt in today’s services and technologies.
Today was a very big day for technology at the U.S. Supreme Court, with two hugely significant cases being argued. The first, Grockster v. MGM Studios, arises from the movie and recording industries’ efforts to impose contributory copyright infringement liability on post-Napster providers of P2P file sharing software. Supreme Court Takes Hard Look at P2P [CNET News.com]. The second, BrandX v. FCC, arises from the FCC’s efforts to clear the way for cable modem broadband service without requiring cable companies to share their facilities with ISPs. Supreme Court Asks Why Cable Broadband Lacks Regulation [ITWorld.com].
It’s always hard to predict where the Court will come down from its oral argument questions. But these remarks from Justices Breyer, Scalia and Souter in Grockster are quite revealing.
Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out Xerox copiers, videocassette recorders, iPod music players, and even the Gutenberg press had the potential of abuse by consumers. “In each case there could be vast numbers of infringement illegal uses,” he said, but he added that the benefits to society from those inventions were incalculable.
Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether innovators would be punished immediately after creating a new product if the entertainment industry had a legal veto. “If I started a business now, how do I know how to proceed?” he asked. “If I’m a new inventor, I’m going to get sued right away.”
“There’s never the intent to break the law when the guy is in the garage inventing the iPod,” added Justice David Souter.
There’s a sense to which both the cable and entertainment industries are overreaching. I’ve got friends and colleagues on both sides of each of these issues, but biting off more than one can legitimately chew is a very bad strategy, since courts (especialy the Supreme Court) are pretty good at sorting out litgants who overstate or overplay their hands.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark office recently granted a patent to NetFlix for their online DVD ordering system. [NYTimes.com]. Now, I am a long-time NetFlix customer, but this indicates there’s a real problem in our patent system with the increasing issuance of so-called “business method patents.” Tim Hanrahan and Jason Fry write in Real Time for the Wall Street Journal that
The Internet bubble may have burst, but one of its unfortunate side effects is still with us, like a drunken partygoer who hasn’t noticed that a) it’s dawn, b) there’s no more beer and c) everyone else has gone home. . . . If you thought the [business-methods patent] controversy was as dead and buried as, say, IPOs for online pet-food delivery businesses, guess again. . . . Could someone — anyone — please grab Mr. Business Method Patent by the collar and heave him out in the hall so we can clean up?
Hear, hear!! It was bad enough with Amazon’s “one-click” patent, but now we’ve got insurance patents, order-processing patents and other patents for what are not inventions, but just ideas. Of course ideas are creative and deserve protection, but they should not be patentable. The difference is that copyright and trademark permit others to use creative ideas — within limits — to make better works, but patents are exclusive. It’s a difference of kind, and a crucial distinction between things that people actually build and things that they just dream of. Dreams are wonderful fantasies, as are business methods patents.
In response to what it terms its “customer’s needs,” Cisco will start to embed “lawful interception” capability into its router products. [C|Net News.com] What’s really going on here is that the convergence of packet-switched and circuit-switched networks is accelerating. So the law enforcement community is no longer content to give the Internet and ISPs a free ride when it comes to digital wiretapping, despite the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). Cisco can’t be blamed, since it’s job is to sell products, but this is just another sign that the days of anonimity on the Internet are numbered.
Apple Adds Features to Safari Browser [CNET News.com]. Apple Computer this morning released an updated beta version of its Safari Web browser as part of a reported effort to “distance its software environment from Microsoft’s.” Apple says that:
Safari offers you a superior Web experience with outstanding performance. Even the most complex of pages load at breakneck speed. Safari zips right by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer for the Macintosh, as it launches, loads pages, and executes JavaScript much more quickly. But that’s not all. Safari uses the advanced interface technologies underlying Mac OS X to offer you an all-new view of the Web, one that’s much easier to use.
Many folks, myself included, felt that the network effects characteristics of the software industry meant that the browser market had already “tipped” decisively to IE. Which would suggest that there is little reason for anyone, including Apple, to innovate in the browser space. So what is going on here? Platform independence perhaps, but it is unclear what the commercial benefits are (if any) that accrue to Apple from developing a new browser. Having said that, I am indebted to Steve Jobs and am rapidly becoming a devoted Safari user.
The Microsoft antitrust case is not over! Appeals Court to Hear Case vs. Microsoft [InfoWorld].
Well, here we go (again). I’ve been working on the Microsoft antitrust case since 1998, and now … finally … the whole thing may be coming to a resolution. Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set the appeal by CCIA and SIIA to be heard “en banc” on an accelerated schedule. The question is whether the settlement proposed by the government and approved by a lower court is “in the public interest.” Hang on until late this year for an answer.
|
|