Home

Text Size

Friday, May 24, 2013

Members

Microsoft: Open Standards Are Good... If They're The Open Standards We Get Paid For

Our own Glyn Moody has been doing some digging and has come up with some interesting info about how Microsoft has been trying to derail an effort in the UK by the government to use open, royalty free standards wherever possible. Microsoft, apparently went on the offensive, arguing strongly that the government should reconsider and also include FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licenses. FRAND is better than nothing, but it's not royalty free, and can certainly limit access to information for those who cannot afford to pay. But what's impressive is how much Microsoft tries to demonize royalty free offerings -- even as it admits in its initial letter than it contributes to "dozens" of royalty free standards.
Moody also notes that Microsoft is misleading in trying to show just how popular FRAND is in open standards when it comes to software:

In a further attempt...

When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...

You may know the name Jimmy Iovine. He's the head of Interscope Records, one of Universal Music's most important subsidiaries (if not the most important one). Not surprisingly, Iovine has a bit of a history of being something of a copyright maximalist. A few years back, he specifically called out the evils of children infringing :

"Rip it, burn it--the last few years parents and children have been given a pass when they knew in their hearts that [what they were doing] was wrong," Iovine said.

Indeed, he seems to suggest that parents share some of the blame for their kids infringing:

"(Piracy) is hurting kids because kids are learning a disrespect for the basic relationship between creativity and ownership. It's hurting parents because they are in on the sham."

So, one would assume that Jimmy Iovine's kids are squeaky clean, right? Especially, say, if they...

Oracle v. Google - Google Slides and Day 2 Filings

If you've read the...

White House Criticizes CISPA, Though Meekly And For Partially Wrong Reasons

With next week's vote on CISPA looming, the White House has made an official statement that implicitly criticizes the bill without mentioning it by name . The Hill reports that National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden issued the statement after a cybersecurity briefing in Congress:

"The nation’s critical infrastructure cyber vulnerabilities will not be addressed by information sharing alone," Hayden said.
"Also, while information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation's urgent needs," she said, without explicitly mentioning CISPA.

While it's very good to hear them to make privacy concerns a central point, the administration's...

Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad

This isn't a huge surprise, but it's good to see that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important case regarding the first sale doctrine in copyright law , and whether or not it applies to products made outside the US. The specific case is one we've been covering, involving a guy, Sudap Kirtsaeng, who was (legally) buying textbooks that were sold in Asia, and then reselling them in the US. Under the first sale doctrine this should be perfectly legal. But... due to a twisted interpretation of copyright law, a 2nd Circuit appeals court went against Kirtsaeng, siding instead with publisher John Wiley. The issue is that the law says that first sale applies to copyrights to products made "under this" law. And the argument is that a product made outside the US may have copyright, but it isn't made "under" US copyright...

Is TPP To Blame For The Continuing Delay In Passing New Zealand's 2008 Bill That Excludes Software Patents?

As Techdirt reported a couple of years ago, a hard-fought campaign in New Zealand to prevent software patents being granted there seemed to have paid off, with a Patents Bill explicitly excluding them that came with the following commentary: We recommend amending clause 15 to include computer programs among inventions that may not be patented. We received many submissions concerning the patentability of computer programs. Under the Patents Act 1953 computer programs can be patented in New Zealand provided they produce a commercially useful effect. Open source, or free, software has grown in popularity since the 1980s. Protecting software by patenting is inconsistent with the open source model, and its proponents oppose it. A number of submitters argued that there is no "inventive step" in software development, as "new" software invariably builds on existing software. They felt that computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can...

Fight Is On Between Oracle And Google Over Java API Copyrights

Last summer, we noted that there was an interesting "sideshow" in the patent dispute between Oracle and Google -- a question of whether or not Java's APIs are covered by copyright. That "sideshow" has become the main attraction now that the trial has started and many of the patent claims have been kicked out.
Oracle has been quite public with its argument (pdf), which is mostly based on taking snippets from Google emails that suggest a need to license Java. The favorite of the bunch is this one:

Fight Is On Between Oracle And Google Over Java API Copyrights

They also point to some snippets of code that do appeared to be copied:

If you just see that side of it, you might be convinced, but the details suggest a much less convincing story. First off, there are serious concerns about whether or not an API even can be covered by copyright. In fact, before Sun was...