Current Affairs « ACTonline

Archive for the ‘Current Affairs’ Category

Blocking Traffic Apps Trapster and PhantomALERT is Misguided

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

Today, Senators Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg and Udall released a letter they sent to mobile applications stores asking them to block distribution of traffic software apps like Trapster and PhantomALERT because user-generated input can warn drivers about drunk driving checkpoints.

While I applaud the Senators for seeking to curb drunk driving, their criticism of online traffic apps misses the point. These programs feature information about speed and red light cameras by mapping publicly available information provided by law enforcement agencies. There is also a social networking element of the apps which allows users to submit traffic information so drivers can avoid traffic jams. This makes these programs very popular attracting tens of millions of users. Law enforcement authorities have embraced these services expressing their strong approval for products that reduce speeding and improve traffic safety.

These traffic apps rely on user-submitted and law enforcement provided information. Any one of the programs’ users can submit a warning about a traffic obstruction as simply as emailing a friend or posting a message on their Facebook profile. The suggestion that the government should compel Apple, RIM, or other mobile application stores to block programs that simply allow users to report information based on location is misguided at best. Taken to its conclusion, that would require blocking apps like Foursquare and Loopt. Having the government act as arbiter of which products should be sold in stores is a slippery slope that few would welcome.

Posted in Current Affairs, Tech Regulation | 1 Comment »

Why the AT&T T-Mobile Merger is Great for Apps Developers

Monday, March 21st, 2011

Yesterday’s announced merger between AT&T and T-Mobile could bring increased access to more smartphone platforms throughout the US, and more spectrum for mobile apps that are becoming the backbone of a fully functional mobile web.

Despite apps being the dominant feature in smartphone ads, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of growth in the mobile applications marketplace. The introduction of the iPhone and iPad blazed the way, creating entire new markets and devices for applications developers to write programs. With the addition of Windows Phone 7 and Android devices, the apps marketplace is a $5.6 billion industry, expected to grow to $38 billion by 2015.

To reach $38 billion in sales, apps developers will need access to as many customers as possible, people who will buy programs to run on their mobile phones and tablets. The merger fills in the gaps of AT&T’s phone network, expanding its network to 95% of the American population. The merger also allows T-Mobile customers to realize the full potential of their network, providing access to new products and services available at LTE speeds.

As we’ve reached this critical point of growth in the apps industry, the limiting factors moving forward are connection speeds and spectrum. Developers want mobiles devices to be able to manage the same type of programs that users are accustomed to working with on their desktops. Yet to date, the mobile web has been more promise than delivery. With AT&T rolling out a true 4G network over T-Mobile’s spectrum, the mobile web we’ve all been waiting for will now be here.

AT&T has long shown a commitment to the smartphone market, boldly investing in the iPhone when it was widely considered a mistake. Now the carrier also serves Android and Windows Phone 7 devices providing apps developers the widest range of platforms on the largest network in the country. Given this history, developers are willing to give AT&T the benefit of the doubt when it comes to support for smartphones.

For applications developers, this merger will expand the marketplace providing more opportunity for growth. Meanwhile the apps that consumers are clamoring for – that are the focus of smartphones ads these days – will now reach a wider audience. That’s something the apps developer community has no problem supporting.

Posted in Current Affairs | No Comments »

Standoff: Google versus Attorney General; Search Giant Refuses to Share Spy-Fi Data

Monday, December 20th, 2010

In a brazen move, Google has refused to comply with the Connecticut Attorney General’s request to review the data it improperly collected in its Wi-Spy activities. The search giant acquired this information when its street view cars trolled nearly every urban neighborhood in the country eavesdropping and recording the private communications from unsecured residential and commercial Wi-Fi networks.

Google’s statements explaining why, and to what extent, it conducted this surveillance on American citizens and businesses have evolved over time. Its first statement suggested that the only information collected was the existence and location of Wi-Fi routers. Then the company was “mortified” to learn that, when the street view cars drove by, they had collected any information being transmitted from the router. Google initially explained that only fragmentary bits of data were captured, but after many countries reviewed similar data (the same type of data to which Connecticut is being denied access), it was revealed that full emails, passwords, and personal information had been collected.

Google’s refusal to comply with the Connecticut AG’s request for this data is remarkable for a number of reasons. First, Google has already provided the information sought by Connecticut to many other foreign governments in Europe. Second, Google has advocated for this kind of transparency and openness in government and corporate activity for many years. Moreover, Google is defying the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the state of Connecticut, who has led a 30-state investigation on this matter, and who will begin serving in the U.S. Senate in a couple weeks’ time.

Why would Google refuse to comply with what is essentially a subpoena from the state of Connecticut? What has led them to adopt such a confrontational role and stonewall an investigation? In the company’s own words:

We did not want and have never used the payload data in any of our products and services. We want to delete this data as soon as possible and will continue to work with the authorities to determine the best way forward, as well as to answer their further questions and concerns.

Google may find this defense particularly tricky given that it raises more questions than it does answers for its current tack.

Of course, the best way forward would be to comply with the state Attorney General as it has already done with the foreign governments of Germany, France, Canada, Spain and England. Yet Google seems to be suggesting that this information would be unsafe in the hands of American law enforcement.

Google’s data-security concerns appear largely implausible. Google justifies its actions by citing concerns about the security of the private data that it secretly and improperly collected. Some might find it disturbing that a huge corporation that profits by aggregating personal data is argues that it has improperly aggregated so much personal data of such sensitivity that even the most senior law-enforcement officials cannot be trusted with it.

Nevertheless, if the security of improperly collected data was Google’s real concern, then it could have proactively implemented familiar, proven mechanisms that could permit investigations to proceed while protecting Google’s improperly aggregated personal data. For example, federal-multidistrict-litigation proceedings often create data-depositories to better preserve the security of sensitive data and reduce the costs of re-producing data of widespread interest.

Google could have acted proactively with a group like the National Association of Attorneys’ General (NAAG) to create a secure data depository. This would have let law-enforcement agencies cross-check Google’s explanations while better protecting the security of the personal data that Google improperly aggregated.

Instead Google has provoked a standoff with Connecticut’s Attorney General. Unfortunately for Google, such tactics inevitably breed the distrust and suspicion that produce sweeping, uncoordinated data-production requests from many law-enforcement agencies. Refusing to comply with what is essentially a subpoena from an Attorney General is a high stakes gamble for the company. Google is daring the state to take criminal action for its intransigence, and Google’s current rhetoric doesn’t really answer the question “why?” The privacy and security concerns seem overblown at best, leading us to continue looking for why the company chose to go to war with state Attorneys General to keep this data out of their hands.

Posted in Current Affairs, New Economy Competition, Privacy, Tech Regulation | No Comments »

ACT Chairman Mike Sax Testifies before Congress on Trade

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

ACT Chairman Mike Sax testified before the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Trade in a hearing on trade in the digital economy. His testimony was so compelling that Chairman Wyden said that Mike should be the test case for small businesses navigating the regulatory challenges to compete in the cloud.

Here’s Mike’s prepared testimony.

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Mike Sax and I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on international trade in the digital economy.

I am here today wearing two hats. In my “day job” I am an independent software developer who makes his living creating and selling software for multiple platforms. My livelihood depends on my ability to write compelling applications and reach customers in a purely digital marketplace. In addition, I also serve as Board Chairman for the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), which represents over 3,000 small business software developers.

Through discussions with other ACT members, I can assure the committee that increased access to global markets is vital for American entrepreneurs and small IT companies. Ninety-seven percent of all exporting companies are small and medium-sized enterprises and we account for twenty-nine percent of U.S. exports by value. In order to succeed, our companies need free and fair trade opportunities.

In many ways, the interests of small and large technology companies are aligned on these issues. Most trade issues that harm large firms like SalesForce and Intel have the same effect on our small firms, but are amplified by the fact we do not have the same legions of lawyers and trade experts. Additionally, issues that have a more direct affect large platform companies like Intel, SalesForce, Microsoft, and Apple have trickledown effects for those of us who develop on those platforms. Trade restrictions that limit access to markets for companies like Microsoft or Apple hurts our members too because it limits our potential customer base.

One emerging issue that affects companies both large and small is cloud computing. Cloud computing refers to applications and services accessed remotely over the Internet. Anyone who uses Web-based email, such as hotmail or gmail, has been using cloud computing. Advancements in broadband speed and mobile devices allow developers to provide new services to customers, making the cloud the biggest growth area in our industry. Unfortunately, the legal system has not kept pace with technology. Developers face multiple and conflicting international laws for privacy, data storage and payment methods. To the extent that we can harmonize these three areas of concern, our members will find tremendous opportunities in the cloud to export their software and services to consumers in other countries.

Small developers also face a “protectionism 2.0″ problem, encountering different rules for software sales based exclusively on country of origin. One of the most obvious examples is China’s computer games rules. Today, a Chinese company that develops a video game can directly market and sell their product within China, without extensive government review or involvement. However, games developers from the U.S. must have their product reviewed by two separate agencies under two separate review processes before it can be marketed legally in China. While the American developer incurs administrative costs during a lengthy delay, if the game proves popular in the U.S., pirated copies will be widely available in China months before the dual review process is completed.

The international patent system also presents serious problems for small businesses interested in protecting their innovations. For example, protecting an invention in the European patent system is TEN TIMES more expensive than in the U.S. The problem is that the European Patent Office provides a uniform patent application process for up to 40 European countries, but it does not provide uniform laws for patentability and enforcement. This means, small firms must translate every patent into each European language and be prepared to defend every court challenge in the host country’s language. Consequently, most small firms simply do not get patent protection in Europe. Adoption of a unified European patent, currently under consideration in Europe, would hopefully address some of these concerns.

Finally, many nations use onerous joint venture requirements to make it more difficult for U.S. business to sell products in their countries. Some require companies to have a local partner who owns more than half of their company. Others allow for 100% foreign ownership, but make it difficult to sell products locally, or require significant sums of money to be “banked” before agreeing to allow the sale of software or services. We hope that USTR and others will continue to urge our trade partners to do away with these kinds of barriers.

In this discussion of innovation, my personal story may be instructive to the Committee. Feeling the constraints that stifled entrepreneurs in Europe, I emigrated from Belgium to Oregon in 1994 on an investor visa. I invested my personal savings in Oregon because the U.S. offered a dynamic software market with low barriers to entry for start-ups and a strong intellectual property system.

My story is not unique, but it has become a talking point for leaders in the EU seeking to reclaim Europe’s position as an innovation hub. During the recent European Commission Patent Conference, a Belgian cabinet minister highlighted my decision to move to the U.S. as an example of why Europe must update its patent system to retain innovative and successful entrepreneurs.

Europeans and innovators from other countries long for a business environment like ours which fosters growth and innovation. They erect trade barriers abroad because they cannot compete with our resources and ingenuity. The U.S. must confront to these obstacles to ensure that the global marketplace remains dynamic and competitive.

The future of the digital economy looks bright for American small businesses, and developers will continue to find success, as long as these challenges do not go unanswered.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important topic and I look forward to any questions you may have.

Posted in Cloud, Copyright, Current Affairs, E-commerce, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and IP, International Trade, Patents, Privacy, Tech Regulation | 1 Comment »

A Rational Shift in the Net Neutrality Debate?

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

At ACT, we’ve taken great interest in the media coverage of a possible pending broadband deal between Verizon and Google. While we know nothing more than what’s been reported in the news, this appears to be an interesting development in the net neutrality debate.

Advocates of net neutrality have differing opinions about what is needed to preserve existing freedoms on the internet. ACT strongly supports the four core principles of net neutrality: that no broadband provider should limit access to any content, device, application or network.

Yet we also understand the pragmatic realities of managing a network and the need of certain applications for better quality of service and packet prioritization. Therefore we are cautiously hopeful that the reported discussions appear to be a move to a more rational position in the net neutrality debate.

At the same time, it’s difficult to know what to make of the deluge of commentary on this issue insisting that “Google is evil”. Perhaps this sudden, vitriolic response to today’s news merely demonstrates the difficulty in reconciling the advertising giant’s carefully constructed public image with its obvious need to maximize shareholder value.

Tags: FCC, Google, net neutrality, verizon
Posted in Current Affairs, Internet Governance, Tech Regulation, Telecom & Cable | No Comments »

This week in Antitrust

Friday, March 12th, 2010

This Friday’s round up of antitrust-related news highlights current activity in a number of different areas of interest including the rise of niche microchip manufacturers, Intel’s continuing struggle to maintain dominance in the mobile device market, a move by airlines in Europe to placate fears of unfair business practices, and a drug company’s efforts to clear its name from the ranks of dastardly monopolists.

Intel – Semiconductor IP: lntel vs. ARM and Tessera’s Expiring Patent | Sramana Mitra

Intel and ARM are not the only players in the smart device chip game but are certainly among the major providers of System on a Chip (SoC) platforms. For an increasingly important variety of gadgets that require completely integrated functionality and low power consumption on one microchip, the market is currently big enough to support a handful of specialty chip manufacturers who are slowly chipping away at Intel’s (and ARM’s) dominance. Sramana Mitra has some excellent analysis of the current chip state-of-affairs in her topical blog post from late last week. She writes on a niche operator that is capitalizing on camera-based handsets:

Tessera is looking to cash in on the growing market for camera-based handsets. Recently, it announced that Samsung Electronics has integrated Tessera’s OptiML Focus solution in its notebooks. Tessera has been building out its imaging and optics portfolio with the help of five acquisitions since 2005: part of Shellcase, a wafer-level image sensor packaging technology provider; Digital Optics, a micro-optical solutions developer; Eyesquad, a smart optics technology supplier; part of Dblur Technologies, a software lens technology developer; and FotoNation, an embedded imaging solutions provider.

Mitra also points out the significant portion of the 3G market space owned by InterDigital, a company focused on “advanced digital wireless technologies” and holder of a number of key patents for cell phone technologies.

InterDigital, which has a 55% share in the 3G handset license market, reported a 20% increase in fiscal 2009 revenue of $297.4 million and net income of $87.3 million or $1.95 per share, more than triple its 2008 income. During 2009, the company repurchased shares for $25 million under the $100 million share repurchase program authorized in March 2009. It ended the year with $409 million in cash.

For a mostly unheard of company, InterDigital is doing quite well, thank you, while Intel continues to struggle to forge lucrative IP deals in the face of ARM’s smartphone product dominance. “Intel is welcome to the market, but at the moment, ARM rules the mobility market…” is how Mitra sums up the situation and with the numbers to back up her conclusion, she’s right on target. Be sure to check out the entire piece for more stock market figures and a few explanatory graphs to complete a well-crafted look at the mobile microchip business.

British Airlines et. al – BA, American, Iberia offer EU concessions | Yahoo! News UK

A number of international kingpins in the airline business are coming under close European Union scrutiny after rival airline, Virgin Atlantic, cried “Foul!” in reaction to the “U.S./EU ‘Open Skies’ agreement, which liberalizes trans-atlantic aviation” that ”would lead to higher prices for consumers.” Virgin’s superstar CEO, Sir Richard Branson, offers his thoughts on the European Commission’s decision to drop its investigation:

“I continue to question why the Commission is even considering these proposals to try and put right the consumer harm of this monster monopoly when it does not seem to have any evidence of concrete consumer benefits,” Richard Branson, president of Virgin Atlantic, said in a statement.

Branson, who met Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia this week to discuss the issue, said Virgin would attempt to show why the alliance should be stopped.

Branson might be barking up the wrong tree, as the airline industry has a long history of creating alliances in order to placate those who cry “Monopoly!” at the thought of increased route-sharing and profitability.

Alliances are seen as a lucrative alternative to mergers and large-scale investments.

The Commission said in a statement that the airlines had offered to give up some landing and take-off slots for routes from London to Dallas, London to Boston, London to Miami and possibly London to New York should competitive conditions change.

The carriers also proposed to allow access to their frequent flyer programs on those routes as well as London-Chicago and Madrid-Miami, and submit data on their cooperation.

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) is also in on the gig, with a tentative “All clear” given to the latest partnership but Branson would still have 45 days to lodge his complaint before receiving the final bad news. But not to worry, there will be other opportunites for Sir Richard’s Revenge: “The Commission is also probing proposed alliances between members of Star Alliance, and members of SkyTeam, both rivals of Oneworld.” Maybe they should just all join hands and form one mega-merger and bury the monopoly hatchet, once and for all.

Monsanto – Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims, Lawyers Say | Bloomberg News

Major food agribusiness leader Monsanto’s legal woes continue to stack up but there may be some relief in sight for the beleaguered seed seller. Jack Kaskey and William McQuillen offer up some excellent reporting on how the US Department of Justice might just be the company’s worst, and best friend, in its bid to continue what some are decrying as unfair, and monopolistic, business practices. They report:

Monsanto Co., facing antitrust probes into its genetically modified seeds, may benefit from previous court rulings in which intellectual property rights trumped competition concerns, antitrust lawyers say.

The Department of Justice and seven state attorneys general are investigating whether the world’s largest seed company is using gene licenses to keep competing technologies off the market. At issue is how the St. Louis-based company sells and licenses its patented trait that allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup herbicide while leaving crops unharmed. The company’s Roundup Ready gene was in 93 percent of U.S. soybeans last year.

DuPont Chemical, a competing firm in the agribusiness marketplace, is hoping for some relief in their struggle to knock Monsanto off the top of the modified seed sales mountain.

“When you have that sort of monopoly power, it can lead to abuse, which is what we’ve been experiencing over the past several years,” said Thomas L. Sager, DuPont’s general counsel.

Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont claims Monsanto protects its lead in biotech seeds, including the Roundup Ready seeds sold since 1996, by controlling whether competitors can add their own genetics.

Monsanto also has begun switching seedmakers and growers from Roundup Ready soybeans to the newer Roundup Ready 2 Yield version in advance of the original’s patent expiration in 2014. DuPont says Monsanto is using incentives and penalties to switch the industry to the new product in a way that unlawfully extends the Roundup Ready monopoly.

Whether Monsanto’s cleverly-contrived plans to offer incentive and penalties that unfairly compressed seed sales into their hands is worthy of being called anticompetitive remains to be seen, but one thing is sure, at 93% of all soybean stock showing the presence of Monsanto’s Round Up Ready genetic alterations, a true monopoly is only a few percentage points away.

Google/Microsoft – EC antitrust probe is latest clash in Google-Microsoft war | IT World

Microsoft is redoubling its efforts to make sure Google feels the pain of the antitrust “hurt locker” that is so well known by the Redmond, Washington software giant. Sharon Gaudin has some pertinent bits and pieces on this increasingly acerbic and serious game of IP brinkmanship for the constant reader to consider:

The EC announced late last month that it had initiated an antitrust probe into Google based on complaints from three European companies, two with connections to Microsoft.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer last week acknowledged his company’s role in pushing government regulators to pursue such investigations.

“We’re not being silent; we’re expressing some of the issues and frustrations we see. Certainly, sometimes that is unsolicited, but oftentimes, it’s because we’ve been asked,” Ballmer told an audience at the Search Marketing Expo in Santa Clara, Calif.

Microsoft’s complaints to the EC are just the latest skirmish in an escalating battle between Google and Microsoft on several fronts, including the operating systems and enterprise apps markets, and the online search business in particular.

Indeed, Google is the dominant presence in the global Internet search market but sees a bit of thinly-veiled collusion in Microsoft’s continued assault on its position. Microsoft hasn’t helped matters much with its own attempts at pretending that it is just an innocent witness to the Google imbroglio.

Julia Holtz, Google’s top antitrust lawyer, questioned Microsoft’s motives in seeking an antitrust probe via complaints made to the EC by Ciao GmbH, a Munich-based company acquired by Microsoft in 2008, and Foundem, a Bracknell, England-based price comparison site and a member of the iComp trade group, which is largely funded by Microsoft.”

I wonder if Google used some of its excellent search algorithms to sniff out Microsoft’s relationship to Ciao and Foundem? And yes, Microsoft deflects some of the unwanted attention from its sly purchase with this rejoinder by Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft: “Ultimately, what’s important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive.”

Pfizer – Pfizer Still Dealing With Antitrust Issues | The Motley Fool

Well-known big pharma company Pfizer has successfully completed its acquisition of rival drug manufacturer Wyeth but continues to strive to placate European Union officials’ concerns of monopolistic practices. Motley Fool Brian Orelli has a some words of insight to help shed light on Pfizer’s sell-off of some less-desirable businesses:

Pfizer’s (NYSE: PFE) acquisition of Wyeth has been done for months, but the pharma giant’s still making moves to satisfy regulators. In order to keep the European Commission happy, today the company sold off some of its animal-health products marketed in the EU to Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY). The terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but Eli Lilly did say that the products will come with a manufacturing plant to help make them.

This move should help Pfizer rebuff additional concerns over its ginormous market presence although it could also cost the company dearly with the loss of significant amounts of pet-centered product lines. Here’s Orelli’s take on what potential Pfizer stockholders should keep in mind:

…[I]nvestors shouldn’t ignore animal-health products either. Added together, Pfizer’s animal products contributed over $2.7 billion to its coffers last year and Eli Lilly’s animal health division added $1.2 billion.

Good stuff, people. Have a great weekend, and see you again next week: same ACT time, same ACT place.

Bonus antitrust-related piece o’ the week: Intel – Intel digs in to fight FTC lawsuit over chip competition| USAToday

Posted in Current Affairs, Innovation and IP, International Trade | No Comments »

What happens to the art when the artist can’t make a living from his or her work?

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Why do we choose the products we
choose, when there are so many alternatives?
I watched the ITIF Forum: “Info-Communism:” A Progressive Path Forward
or a Political and Intellectual Dead End? On ustream ustream today ITIF and Jonathan Zuck, the president of ACT, raised this
very fundamental question.

Although the discussion that followed
by the panel was interesting, I am not sure that the panelists ever really
answered Jonathan’s question.

It seems like an important one. Certainly it is relevant for anyone who hopes
to make a living off of their photos, poems, or code. It is in fact a critical question for
everyone who enjoys the products of these creative entrepreneurs.

On today’s panel, the discussion centered on intellectual and
political movements that seek to level the playing field by opening up access to
art to all, without fee, the creations of the few who toil to innovate. By name alone, these movements–“free culture,”
“openness movement,” and “extreme Net Neutrality”–sound inviting. Who would be opposed to a level playing
field? Why would anyone want to pay more
to enjoy what they could have for free?

There are lots of examples of how
we share more in real time today than was ever possible before. We trade quotes and pictures and lyrics with
people we have never met before from all corners of the globe. Sites like Flickr flickr show the amateur photographer in all of us what it
means to aspire to great beauty. This is
all wonderful to be sure. Free – looks
like it works fine. But, there is a rub.

Certainly these same folks that
enjoy such art would likely think they are paying the artist a compliment if
they share this shot with others. They probably
don’t spend much time pondering the fair use exception carved out by the
Supreme Court in its 1984 decision in Sony Corporation of America v.
Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984) when they use the pictures they downloaded as their
wall photo. But what of the
photographer who hopes to make a living off of the sale of his or her
work?

There are, to be sure, some areas
of grey in the current understanding of what fair use means in the digital
economy. Everyone understands what it
means to give someone credit for work well done and talents well used – and
even this simple courtesy is often overlooked.

At one level there may be a
qualitative difference between similar things:
one may have more artistry; be more elegant; or, more clearly capture the
essence of efficiency. Should the
author, poet or developer who labored and honed his or her skills to create
this artistry not be rewarded for the hours of training?

The real debate, however, probably has less to do with defining
boundaries in the currently foggy areas of fair use, or imposing norms of
civility and kindness, and more to do with human nature of striving for
excellence and wanting to be rewarded for the effort. How do you encourage investment and
creativity?

Jonathan’s question highlighted that people tend to gravitate
towards the work of professionals. In
other words, people seem to like that work best. Viewers gravitate to the music, movies and
art of professionals so it behooves us to allow those professionals who simply
work harder and for longer on their craft to enjoy the fruits of that
labor.

Jonathan raised the example of the “Hope” poster. His point was that while there is a lot of
debate over fair use surrounding that poster, he finds himself asking why when
there were over 100,000 photos of Obama that could have been used for free up
on Flickr, why did that person choose a professional image? Jonathan suggested, and rightly so, that the
user of this shot sought to profit from HIS art, shouldn’t the inspiration for
that art profit as well?

What happens to the art when the artist can’t make a living from
his or her work? After all Free is great – until it isn’t.

Tags: ACT, art, fair use
Posted in Copyright, Current Affairs, Music, Tech Regulation, Web/Tech, Weblogs | No Comments »

From "e"-Government to "we"-Government: ACT Open Government Event on Tuesday

Monday, April 13th, 2009

ACT will host an event on open government on Tuesday, Apr 14 from 9:30 to 10:45am. It’s at the newly opened Capitol Visitors Center, Congressional Meeting Room South (the new main entrance to the U.S. Capitol, is located on the East front at First Street and East Capitol Street, NE). Coffee and morning snacks will be served.

Join us to discuss how we can move from merely posting information online (e-government) to a more participatory process (we-government). We’ll discuss core concepts of “we” government—including the social media technologies that enable access, accountability and participation—and how Congress can create processes for a more transparent government:

Define what being “open” means for the executive, legislative and judicial branches
Review and update procedures and rules within government to better deliver information to citizens
Create mechanisms for accepting and integrating increased constituent correspondence and comments on rulemakings

Policymakers can also help the IT vendor community by providing more specific information and requirements. IT companies are eager to compete and prove themselves in the government procurement process in ways that will empower Americans like never before.

Presenters include:

· Braden Cox, Association for Competitive Technology

· Jerry Brito, Mercatus Center

· Andrew Plemmons Pratt, Center for American Progress

Please RSVP to Melissa at mmoskal at actonline.org or call 202.420.7484

Tuesday, April 14, 2009
9:30-10:45AM
Capitol Visitors Center, Congressional Meeting Room South
This is a widely attended event.

Posted in Current Affairs, Innovation and IP, Web/Tech | No Comments »

What Everyone is Talking About

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

It's what everyone is talking about. The
decision and its effect on America is sparking dinner table and water cooler
conversation, pitting friend against friend. No matter on which side you
fall—for or against—your arguments are sure to be passionate, with examples and
anecdotes to support your position. Few people are indifferent. People
ask, “What are the long term effects?” Others say that a dip in the numbers
doesn’t require so drastic of an overhaul, especially an overhaul about which
so many people disagree.

I’m talking, of course, about the addition of the fourth
judge on “American Idol,” Kara (pronounced care-uh? Car-uh? Who knows)
DiSomething. For the record, I think the show needed another actual judge
(since Paul Abdul’s nonsense about wanting to squeeze cute contestants’ heads
and mount them on her rearview mirror shouldn’t really count as “judging” in a
singing contest) but I just don’t like Kara. Her pro-cute boy, anti-cute
girl attitude reminds me of high school, and she’s prone to
borderline-inappropriate outbursts that are slightly reminiscent of Meg Ryan’s
infamous “When Harry Met Sally” scene.

As much as I dislike her, I found myself imitating her this
morning—pounding my fists and saying, “Yes! Yes!"–when I read this piece in
the Wall Street Journal by Tom Hayes and Michael Malone. There have been
countless recommendations on how to help small businesses during this recession
(we made some here),
but, as a certain "Idol" judge might say, these guys just nailed it.

The column has real-world suggestions that would help
entrepreneurs and, therefore, the economy as a whole since small businesses do
most of the hiring and create somewhere north of 70% of all new jobs in this
country. And the suggestions, like eliminating the payroll tax, would be
of immediate benefit to small firms, allowing for additional cash flow. (I’m
still a fan of this,
which would have the same immediate effect, but is probably harder to
implement.)

So, what do you think, small business America? Do you agree
with the judge’s reaction? As it goes with Seacrest, DiSomething, and crew… The
choice is yours. The phone lines are now open.

Posted in Current Affairs, Entrepreneurship | No Comments »

The Key to Open Government is Through Processes, not Products

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

“Open government” can mean various things to different people, but a couple of articles I’ve recently read suggest that solutions for opening the government vault of information should focus on the “way” and not the “what.”

Why is this distinction important? Well, it takes the initial focus away from vendors lobbying that their products are more “open” and forces governments to reexamine how they collect, store and disseminate data. It is this hard look that will really make the difference, I think. And there are two interesting articles that highlight processes toward openness.

The first is an article by Daniel Ballon at PRI, where he writes about the perils of being too vendor focused when making government more open. He developed an illustrative table where he breaks down three purposes for technology in promoting transparency (transparency, government communication with citizens, and government collaboration with third-party sites). There will be different government processes needed for each purpose — for instance, creating ways for private systems to more easily data mine public databases.

The second is an article by Douglas McGray of New America Foundation in the Jan/Feb edition of the Atlantic Monthly. McGray hypes up the importance of API documentation. Governments should publish API information and allow the development of third-party applications to more easily synchronize with government databases. While McGray confuses open formats (such as releasing information in text, comma delimited format) with APIs (documentation that tells programmers how to interact with a specific application), the article is still instructional.

There are many roads that can lead us to open government, and with the right processes in place, we may just get there.