Bad software patents again

Greg Aharonian has named the worst software patent of the year in his PATNEWS mailing list, and I must say that I thoroughly agree with his choice. Behold U.S. Patent 6,910,071, which protects a "Surveillance monitoring and automated reporting method for detecting data changes". Sounds impressive, right? Here is the abstract:

A surveillance monitoring and automated reporting method is used for detecting observable changes in data sources over a network, such as the internet, for accessing changing data, such as world wide web content data, and for providing scheduled change detection notifications and results through user defined search criteria for automated monitored search criteria matches on a recurring basis by user defined scheduling. The method extracts content data from the data sources and updates a master database, then detects changes in the content data within the search criteria. Upon detection, the user is notified using graphical interfaces, electronic mail messages, pager messages, or personal data assistant messages.

Wait a second. A patent for a system that detects changes in database and sends a notification? This is beyond obvious, any database worth its salt will come with such a notification procedure. Not only that, imagine that any sort of notification of changes already in existence will be infringing.

And they ask why so many people are opposed to software patents.

Creative Commons and real life

What happens when works licensed under Creative Commons hit real life? My theory is that CC is no different to any other type of licensing in principle, and that posting stuff online will always leave one open to abuse, be it with proprietary or non-proprietary works.

This is brought by the interesting case of the mobile phone pictures of the London Underground bombings in July, which travelled the world via blogs under a Creative Commons licence. This was a great example of the power of open licensing and the advent of the "citizen journalist". Now the pictures have appeared in Time's Pictures of the Year feature, but one image is credited to the author and Gamma, a wire-photo agency. The question is now, how can they claim any sort of ownership over the picture?

This comes at the same time that Lessig has expressed some concern about the incompatibility between copyleft licences.

Interesting times ahead.

alternative wikipedia edited by experts

According to The Register, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is to launch an alternative Wikipedia that combines the best of both worlds: wide public input edited by hired experts.

This is definitely something to be curious about and it will be interesting to see how this approach works out.

Arne

SCRIPT-ed December issue now online

The latest issue of SCRIPT-ed is now online. Here are the contents:

Editorial
- The Adelphi Charter; John Howkins.

Special Feature
- Intellectual Property, Competition and Human Rights: the past, the present and the future; Abbe Brown and Charlotte Waelde.
- Intellectual Property Rights, Competition Policy and Innovation: Is There a Problem? Paul A. Geroski.
- The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition in Developed Countries; Valentine Korah.
- Human Rights and Competition Law: Possible Impact of the Proposed EU Constitution; Neil MacCormick.
- Towards Utopia or Irreconcilable Tensions? Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Competition Law; Hector L MacQueen.
- HUMAN RIGHTS-Relevant Considerations in respect of IP and Competition Law; E.S. Nwauche.

Peer-reviewed articles
- Socially responsible intellectual property: a solution? Abbe E. L. Brown.
- Of Otakus and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law; Jordan S. Hatcher.

Book Reviews
- Human Rights in the Digital Age; Mathias Klang and Andrew Murray (eds). Reviewed by Nicholas J Gervassis.
- The Data Protection Directive and Medical Research across Europe; Deryck Beyleveld, David Townend, Ségolène Rouillé-Mirza and Jessica Wright (eds). Reviewed by Jane Kay.
- A Handbook on the GATS Agreement; World Trade Organization. Reviewed by Christine Riefa.

What does Nature's Wikipedia study reveal?

This week Nature published a study on the reliability of Wikipedia in comparison to the Britannica encyclopaedia. 50 science articles were chosen from both encyclopaedias and send for "blind" peer review. The result from 42 returned usable reviews: Britannica turned up 123 errors, and Wikipedia 162.

In regards to this outcome, Nature titled: "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head."

This is definitely a big success for Wikipedia and many have seen it in this way. But others interpret the study in a different way. The Register for example puts it this way: "Wikipedia science 31% more croncy than Britannica's". It points out that "there are errors and there are errors" and that no one should draw firm conclusions without a closer look at the reviews. The Register also suggests that Wikipedia will probably prove more unreliable in the fields of social science and culture.

These are excellent points and it would be too hasty to celebrate Wikipedia's victory over Britannica. But the most staggering about this all is: why does Britannica turn out with 123 errors, an average of 3 errors per article? Does this mean Britannica is doing very bad, or does it only reflect that knowledge is difficult to grasp, constantly changing and more a matter of agreement than of cognition? If the latter would be the case, 162 "errors" in 42 articles wouldn't be that bad.

And another point to think about: Presuming that knowledge is a product of peer production in the broadest sense, an encyclopaedia based on peer production might be the perfect tool to represent this knowledge. If it will be able to attract more and more qualified authors and get rid of those who deliberately vandalise the articles, future headlines might be something like this: "Wikipedia far ahead".

Arne

Flooding peer-to-peer networks firm fails

A firm dedicated to flooding P2P file sharing networks with fake copies has been shut down. Overpeer was a company that started filling networks with copies that did not work in order to make it difficult for users to find music. They were initially paid by the music industry, but the networks never really suffered from the service because they were always available, and many included rating systems.

If you can't beat them, sue them

Creative is threatening to enforce a patent that they own on a system to navigate music on a digital player. Unfortunately the news source does not have the patent number. This seems like just another way of beating your competition. If their product is more popular, find a broad patent and sue them into submission.

Two studies on open source and public domain

WIPO has published a study entitled "A Primer on Open Source Software for Business People and Lawyers". Seems ineresting and I will read when I am back.

Another interesting report has been produced by the The Brennan Center, called "Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control". Another one to read.

France is planning to enact strict copyright law soon

After taking time implementing the EC copyright directive 2001, France is now planning to force the copyright and neighbouring rights in the information society bill (DADVSI) through parliament using an emergency procedure. Due to heavy lobbying from the copyright industry, French copyright law may become the strictest in Europe (BoingBoing).

For the French copyright and neighbouring rights in the information society bill, click here.

For more information, click here.

Arne

UK Treasury to conduct IP study

(First seen on IPKat). A new study from the Treasury on the impact of IP to the UK economy has been announced. While this has to be welcome, it is worrying that the people who drafted the report on the website are unaware that fair use is an American legal term, and that it does not exist in the United Kingdom.

Costa Rica

I'm off on annual leave to Costa Rica. I will be posting as often as possible with technology news from tropical climates.

Creative Commons Scotland licences go live

Creative Commons Scotland licences are now available in the Creative Commons website. The licences are the end result of the outstanding effort and dedication of Jonathan Mitchell QC, who has drafted and pushed for the licences tirelessly. Jonathan must be applauded for making this launch possible.

This blog is now licensed under a CC-SCO BY licence.

Build your own web

(Thanks to Arne for the link) After the news that ICANN is to remain in control of the web (was there ever any doubt they would?), there are people out there asking whether this should be the case. There is an alternative, build your own root nameserver. The internet currently works with 13 root nameservers,which make up the backbone of the current domain name system. The root is distributed, but eventually the control is in ICANN. The current system allows only for the top level domains and country top level domains that we know and loathe (.com, .org, .ac.uk).

Dutch company UnifiedRoot provides an alternative root system that allows for the existence of ad hoc domain names, such as parking.schiphol and news.cnn. They have already sold several names, but the question must be asked, is this feasible? The whole point of having a new internet is that they need to be updated in DNS servers around the world. To do this, ISPs will have to include a set of addresses into their tables. I tried with my home ISP and with the University of Edinburgh's, and neither recognise the set of UnifiedRoot addresses. I could do this manually by adding their DNS servers into my own server list, but this is cumbersome, and would require extra steps from the user. Besides, most DNS setting nowadays are set by dynamic settings.

This is a very interesting idea, but I am still a bit sceptical about it.

Being innovative is dangerous

There have been hundreds of reports about the very real possibility that the BlackBerry will not survive this year because of the patent threats by a company called NTP. The BlackBerry case is perhaps the most evident example of the folly of the patent system as it exists in the information and telecommunications industries. NPC is a company that doesn't make anything, its only business is to profit from the patents filed by the company makers. BlackBerry on the other hand was created by innovators who took the market by storm and have provided a device for the workaholics and the incurably connected to check their emails everywhere. They were the real innovators, but the people who will profit from their innovation are going to be those who sit and prey on those who take the first step.

This is perhaps what is wrong with the present system. It is easier to file patents and see if somebody will actually build something, then sue them for all they have. Their only crime was to do what innovators are supposed to do. How long until we have no new BlackBerries?

Sony DRM: The aftermath

So, what have we learnt from the Sony DRM fiasco? In internet terms, the scandal is old news, so the time may have come to have a look at how the item has affected the market.

The first lesson to be learnt is that blogs and online buzz have power once certain outrage threshold has been passed, and that the mainstream media listens to bloggers and may even incorporate some important net stories. Sony had to react to the perceived outrage immediately, asking for a recall and promising to remove the technology from future CDs.

The second lesson is that it is still evident that the mainstream doesn't care about DRMs. While this has been a big online story, Sony has not yet suffered massive losses on sales. There have been direct losses as a result however, as sales of a music CD mentioned in most news stories plummeted on Amazon and other online retailers. But other than that, Sony has not suffered sales losses, which may be an indication that most people do not listen to music on their computers, and they do not transfer music to their digital players (or do not own one). People's eyes glaze over when they hear about DRM and other technology, and your average music consumer will not care about what is inside the CD.

The third lesson is that despite the public's lack of action, the system will not stop music copying in any shape or form. Reports have already indicated many different ways in which the DRMs can be easily beaten. Hackers and those likely to share music online are not stopped by restrictive DRM technology, so why use it? It is a manner of control of the everyday user, nothing else.

And finally, there is a chance that artists may want to regain some power over their music. Whenever the music industry sells their newest anti-piracy crusade, they will parade an artist to plead to the public. But the artists have no power in the music business. Some artists have complained that they were never asked if the CD should be sold with some technical protection measure. Canadian singer Jane Siberry has taken a stand and started her own DRM-free store (thanks to Geoff Pradella for the link). To me this is the most interesting development. Could artists try to retake control from the big labels? Do we really need Sony BMG?

VI Computer Law World Conference

This is the call for contributions for the VI edition of the Annual Computer Law World Conference, which will take place from the 4-8 September 2006 in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh. The conference brings together legal academics and practitioners from around the world to consider and debate all aspects of information technology law. Previous years’ conferences have fostered links between educational institutions and legal practices across the globe, reaching out to a wider international audience each year.

Call for Papers

Contributions are sought in all legal aspects of the information society. The following topics will receive priority:

• Privacy
• Innovation
• ICT for Developing Countries
• Traditional Knowledge and ICT
• Virtual Communities
• Gender and Technology
• Cybercrime
• Digital Economy
• Online Creative Industries
  

Format

Please send your abstract not exceeding 600 words in length. The abstract should also describe the paper and its relevance in the international arena.

Please attach a one-paragraph biographical detail, not exceeding 160 words.

Send your abstract to a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk with the subject “Computer Law Abstract”.

Deadline

The deadline for contributions is Friday 31st March 2006.

About the event

The World Computer Law Conference was created as a response to the many challenges presented by the dynamic environment known as the Information Society. The event was initiated by Alfa-Redi, a Latin American civil society organisation, and the previous five events have run successfully in Quito (Ecuador 2001), Madrid (Spain 2002), Havana (Cuba 2003), Cusco (Peru 2004), and Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic 2005). In 2006 the event returns to Europe, hosted by the Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the University of Edinburgh.

The VI Computer World Conference will focus on the understanding that the Information Society is one of the most important technological developments of the present time, and as such it presents unique regulatory challenges that must be discussed by informed academics and proactive practitioners. The conference is centred on practical issues, but also it will analyse the most pressing policy problems seen through the strictest theoretical perspective.

All Your Google Base Are Belong to Us

Google Base is the newest project from our friends at Google (*cough*Evil Empire*cough*) to introduce a new consumer service (*cough*world domination*cough*). Google Base will allow people to host all sorts of information and content that will be indexed and picked up by the search engine. This means that if you have something that you want to share with the world, Google will host it. This could work as the world's classified section. Things that you can add into the service include events, publication details, news items, reviews, recipes, wanted ads, jobs, etc.

I am curious to see how popular this will become, but I can see the advantage of having something that will be instantly added to the Google index, and therefore it will be searched immediately by Google.

For those who don't know the "All your base are belong to us" reference.

To boldly go where no patent has gone before

Now to one of my favourite blogging subjects, the broken American patent system. Every time I get comfortable and think that it could not get any sillier, a new patent comes along that is so mind-boggingly ludicrous that leaves me gasping for breath. Let me introduce U.S. patent 6,960,975, which protects a space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state. According to the abstract:

A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale.

The purpose of this patent eludes me, but even if we could ascertain its utility, I am left aghast by the lack of geeky knowledge displayed by the USPTO examiners. Any geek worth his salt will immediately recognise that this patent is describing Star Trek's warp drive system. In fact, there is a theory that describes the workings of the drive, which sound very familiar to the abstract.

USPTO examiners have lost some major geek points.

BitTorrent maker against downloads

Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, has come out in a press conference against movie downloads with the head of the MPAA. It would seem like the MPAA has made an offer that he could not refuse and he has had to agree to a number of demands, including the fact that the torrent search site that exists in BitTorrent.com will block links to infringing content. By doing this, Cohen has avoided litigation.

But nobody uses BitTorrent's site. The favourite site for looking for content is PirateBay.org, located in Sweden. The interesting part of PirateBay is that they claim that what they do is legal, because they do not post the infringing content, but they post files that may contain information of where to get it.

Interesting arguments, for more on this subject you can read the excellent article in SCRIPT-ed by Bob Rietjens.

WSIS: was it worth it?

The geek invasion of Tunis has moved on, all of the bloggers have gone home, and the WSIS has concluded. The World Summit of the Information Society has left us with two documents, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society and the Tunis Commitment. After several years of preparatory meetings, conferences, reunions and enough paper to bury a small city, the question has to be, was it worth it?

The most important document is the Tunis Agenda. It is unfortunate that this is an "agenda", I still wonder if this was a wasted opportunity, such a massive effort should have ended in a full agreement, but that option was never on the table realistically. What we have is another wishy-washy document that sounds very good, but has very little in the manner of action. The financial agenda for ICT development is full of UN-speak with commitments like these:

"Multilateral, regional and bilateral development organisations should consider the utility of creating a virtual forum for the sharing of information by all stakeholders on potential projects, on sources of financing and on institutional financial mechanisms. [...]
Multilateral, regional and bilateral development organisations should consider cooperating to enhance their capacity to provide rapid response with a view to supporting developing countries that request assistance with respect to ICT policies. [...]
Encouraging increased voluntary contributions"

There is however a very good recommendation, and it is the last point of the financial agenda. It asks for the "debt cancellation and debt swapping, that may be used for financing ICT for development projects". This is a worthwhile effort that could be translated immediately into IT projects in developing countries, particularly after the unveiling of the $100 dollar laptop.

The documents also deal with the issue of governance, but it has already been reported that not much will change in that area, other than the creation of another international overseeing body.