Copyright and the O’Dwyer case

Posted on by

So, I’m not sure how many of you out there have heard about this O’Dwyer case. Tech Dirt has a nice article about it today check it out here. If you don’t feel like reading it I’ll summarize it. An UK student is being extradited to the US over a website he set up which links to streaming content. The website had already been ICE’d, or seized by the US government. Apparently that wasn’t enough now the Southern District of New York wants to bring this kid over to the US and try him, for something. However there are some problems:  “a) perfectly legal in his home country and (b) probably legal in the US.” (tech Dirt article). So, this is a bit of a problem. O, and by what he means by legal in the US is that it’s not criminal, and you can only be extradited for a criminal offense.

So, this really brings into focus some of the activities of ICE in general. There are a lot of people that are concerned with the overly broad approach to seizing domain names as there is not much judicial oversight. What that means is that these actions could have a chilling affect on freedom of speech, destroy businesses, and in some cases lives. One of the seizures involved a false accusation of child pornography. That can completely destroy a person’s reputation. The other problem is that it’s not even clear that these actions are completely illegal.

The US copyright laws are getting progressively more difficult to understand. This comes at a time when users are interacting with copyright in their daily activities. To enjoy media people should not have to concern themselves with a byzantine set of laws. I plan in the upcoming weeks to write some posts about the history of copyright and how it has changed over time. I’ll also discuss some of the Creative Commons “Copyleft” movement that’s been founded by Lawrence Lessig.

The Power of Old Technology

Posted on by

So most of what I post about is about innovation and how that can impact the economy. However, these innovations can take years to hit the larger part of a given market let alone the greater population (either in a country or in the world). I think it’s pretty obvious why it takes so long for technology to diffuse in a given area, but I’ll list some. I think the two biggest adoption slow downs are price and lock-in. I think price is fairly straight forward, if you can’t afford it you can’t buy it right away. You have to wait until the product reaches a price point you can afford. This may mean that you bought an original iPhone when the iPhone 3GS came out or something along those lines. Lock-in is a little bit more complicated. There can be a couple different types of lock-in. Keeping with the cell phone example, you are locked into a specific network based on your contract, and in some cases with the difficulty in taking your number to the new network with you. The other type of lock in is the fact that you are already using a phone. You may already really enjoy using your Blackberry, because you use Blackberry messenger, so you’re going to continue using Blackberry phones even if it is a lesser product.

Most of those examples are from our developed world. Most of the time we don’t think about how the rest of the world uses technology. In parts of India people are still using those old Nokia phones we had about 10 years ago. They were sturdy phones that were able to call and text. In those areas were the only connection is a mobile phone that is powered by a solar panel these old technologies are important. The problem with mixing new technologies like solar panels with rural farmers that still mostly use a hoe for farming is that they have no abilities to fix or deal with a broken solar panel. While most people in the developed world do not either, there are people that do have the experience and they are only a phone call away.

Old technologies also have a habit of making a comeback. Look at the recent explosion of LP sales. This technology was basically dead during the 80’s and 90’s, however it’s extremely popular now again. This is partially because of other effects. The fact that when you purchase many LPs you are able to get a digital version of the album makes it less risky for you to buy the LP. I say risky, not that there is much risk, because without that most people would result to downloading a copy of the album and with the copyright system the way it is, you risk lawsuits etc.

There’s an interesting book on this topic. It’s called “Shock of the Old” by David Edgerton. It’s a great read, pretty fast to get through it too. There’s some surprising numbers in there. For instance, the Nazi’s used more horses in WWII than the British did in WWI. While they were used for carrying supplies, it’s not something we see in movies or video games. Apparently even the US had 1 horse for every 4 men.

Are there any old technologies that you’ve seen a resurfacing of, or that you’ve heard of being used today?

Technology Incubators and You

Posted on by

So, I had a discussion on faccebook that went from discussing the cost of labor for a dutch bike mechanic (€40 for about 15 minutes for work to install wheel (i did it myself in 30 minutes instead of paying that)) to a discussion about technology incubators. It got me thinking about incubators and how people think of them. Technology Incubators come in a variety of forms and while many are attached to universities there have recently been a few where they are unaffiliated and some 18 year old kid makes one. But what is an incubator? Well, at the most basic level an incubator is a place that allows a firm to grow from an idea into an actual business. When it graduates it’s at the stage where it’s making enough money to support itself, or it has gotten Venture Capital (VC) backing so it has enough money to expand to a larger facility.

My first experience with an incubator was the Machine Assistance Center (MAC) at the University of Pittsburgh where I did my undergraduate. I thought it was the coolest idea. It was this old warehouse that was converted into separate mini-factories with a few different companies in it. The rent was free or dirt cheap, and there was equipment, like lathes, drill presses and a 6 axis CNC machine. The firms were able to rent time on these tools to create their product, make new prototypes and train new employees. The university also used these tools to train community members on how to use them to gain new skills for employment. Eventually these firms were making enough money that they were able to move out of the MAC get their own place and set up shop there.

I know that in Pittsburgh there are at least two other incubators. I’m sure there are more. Carnegie Mellon started the other two I’m aware of. However, these ones are software based start ups. So these firms have very different needs than physical product based firms. The Innovation Lab at Eindhoven University of Technology, in Eindhoven The Netherlands, where I’m pursuing my master’s degree, has a different model than either. It has spaces large enough for firms that need to manufacture products, but it also has a lot of offices for consultation firms as well. So, there are many different models for an incubator and non are exactly the same.

Ok, that’s great, why should I care about these things? Well, it matters because some of these are tax payer subsidized or were created through your tax dollars (Tax Euros? Just doesn’t sound right). Earlier this year Obama started the win the future campaign, which put a couple hundred million into both VC, public groups and incubators to help reduce the barriers to entry for new companies. Many policy makers believe that these incubators or hubs of heavy start up activity could spawn another Silicon Valley, or greatly boost the economy through job creating companies. Sadly, most of these companies actually only employ a few people and don’t become huge firms like we’d like them to be (Clarysse et al, 2005). However, this activity still can help the economy of the region to some extent.

So what do we do about it? Well, I plan on studying these and their impact for my master’s thesis, so we’ll see what I find. I probably won’t post to much about it as I might try to publish a paper about it. However, when I do that I’ll write about my findings on here. Until then, I say we should be supporting these incubators. Lowering barriers to competition will eventually lead to new products, services and lower pricing. That’s what we, as consumers, want right? Besides, I want to start a company some day and I’d like some help in getting me to the point where I can get VC funding 😉

Moar?
Here’s an article about the “Win the future” campaign from when it was first announced: http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/31/startup-america-a-campaign-to-celebrate-inspire-and-accelerate-entrepreneurship/

References:
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Veld, E. Van de, Vohora, A. (2005) “Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research Institutions”, Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 20 pp 183-216 http://www.feb.ugent.be/nl/Ondz/wp/Papers/wp_04_228.pdf

Innovation and Software Patents

Posted on by

Whenever a new type of product is released there are a lot of difficulties with intellectual property. This is being played out in biotechnology and software. As recently as last year it was possible to patent human genes in the US. See this link for the recent verdict against it. The ACLU also had a write up from 2009 when this case was still ongoing about the history of genetic patenting. Software is another case of this. Many people argue that since software is an algorithm or series of statements that leads to a result it should not be patentable. This makes sense as mathematical proofs are unable to be patented. The argument is that for proofs these are discoveries and more natural processes than creating technology.

In the EU it is not possible to obtain a software patent at all. They claim that with software there are multiple different methods to obtain the same output. Software patenting is a very recent trend. The most famous example is the Amazon.com one-click to buy button. Which, if you don’t know what it is, basically allows you to store an address and a credit card and automatically buy whatever product you’re looking at. Fairly simple right? Well there was a lawsuit against a major competitor, Barnes and Noble about this in ’99. Some how this patent managed to survive the re-review, even though it’s a fairly obvious idea and could be implemented in about a billion different ways. On the billions, I’m not even exaggerating. There would be so many different interactions that could make the actual implementation totally different. These range from database types, information request, how the data is actually stored in the data base. There could be nothing similar between the implementation at all, yet Amazon ones all the methods to do this. In terms of patents this is effectively an amazing patent.

Let’s put this more simply. If software patents had been allowable in the 70’s when software first started to take off we would be living in a different world. BIOS have been owned by IBM until 1990 or so, which would have made manufacturing computers a two horse race between Apple and IBM. Microsoft or Apple could have patented the Operating system, and then the graphic user interface. IT innovation would have been non-existent. Think of this, some one could have patented data sorting. There are a many different ways to sort data in the CS world and all of them would have been covered by a single patent. Then some one could have decided to patented sorting on a multi-core computer (by then sorting as a patent would have expired).

Software is more like a mathematical proof than it’s like inventing the computer.

Innovation in the software world has been amazing because it has been something of a free for all. However, there are drawbacks to this lack of IP protection. In the most recent version of iOS, iOS5, Apple has been accused of lifting many of it’s new “innovations” from apps that have been rejected from the app store, or that have been selling in the jailbroke iPhone app store. Here’s the link for the article. How do we deal with cases like this, either Goliath stealing from David or David stealing from Goliath? There needs to be some sort of protection.

Potentially copyright should cover this, or a registered design. Perhaps in the case of the app stores a non-compete agreement should be signed if the app is rejected by Apple. Meaning Apple won’t steal it. However, there is no easy solution. Software design thefts are going to be very difficult to manage and deal with.