My So-Called Digital Life

Everybody Goes Zune Zune

Ok, so the iPod. Fairly ubiquitous right? I mean, when they galloped onto the market so many years ago, people thought it was a fad...then there were the naysayers...you know the ones..."but it only works on a mac". brilliant. everyone wanted one so much, they had to purchase a new computer....until...the next version and then you could use it with your PC...another marketing victory. now it does video, music, files, pictures, etc....it is a standalone system that will see itself into the sunset.

who knows.

But it is curious that Microsoft would compete so late in the game with Zune...something that is restricted due to digital rights. Curious. MS generally doesn't release anything without thinking it through...but to where?

I've already complained about this little box. I'm just still confused...what is real the method to their madness?

It's not very pretty, its priced too high to not be an iPod if you know what i mean, and its a ugly brown colour. That all said, their business model just might work...eventually. And maybe that all has to do with partnerships. MS just launched a revenue sharing deal with Universal Music Group. MS gets the rights to sell UMG's music and Universal will receive a slice of Zune sales. Nice.

The difference here is that MS adds motivation that goes beyond the downloads rates of Apple. The partners now have a stake in Zune's success.

But do I care about that? Nope. I'm the end user...and i want as much music as i can find when i want it...in the easiest way possible...with my itunes....i personally have no stake in anyone's business model except my own and that's to take MY music...anywhere...now...not when a provider gets around to giving it....

in other words i might not want the chicken or the beef but the fish. and if MS is only offering me beef and limited choice, i'll dine out elsewhere.

The Launch of Visual Search

I don't know how many of you have checked out www.like.com, but honestly, you should head right over there. For years, people have been discussing and testing the idea of visual search technology. A search technology that would be more than just text links and descriptions. Like.com has done it one better by matching pics with "like" products that can be found and bought online. And how do you cleverly launch that...well hook people up with the products similar to what the celebrities are wearing!

And you can submit to their database, you products, which in turn, finesse their technology when more people use it. I submitted www.snazzygirl.com to see what would happen. And considering some of the products that the celebrities are wearing are actually available on snazzygirl.com, it should be a no-brainer.

There are other visual search engines...sort of, like pricecanada.com, shoptoit.ca, shop.com, shopping.com and others, but this one takes it up a notch by letting people see ahead what they would like to shop for and then using search in a very creative way, to solve the problem. All visually.

iTune songs play on rival players

Recently I was speaking a digital entertainment conference in Hong Kong called Digital Entertainment World 2006 and digital rights were a hot issue. Ron Wheeler, SVP, Content Protection from Foxy Entertainment Group spoke about the issue and all the techonlogies and agreements that are being created to stifle sharing music and video.

He made an interesting comment that its mostly the home users, the personal users who buy a CD, burn it and lend it out or give it to friends. That is where the industry is losing most of its money.

Found this on www.broadbandreports.com. Interesting twist on digital rights and not surprising.

"John Johansen claims to have created software that unlocks playback restrictions of Apple iPod and iTunes music products. And he intends to licenses it for sale to online music stores. Songs bought online from iTunes Music Store can't be played on portable devices made by other companies. Songs purchased from other online music stores also won't work on iPods because they similarly use a form of copy-protection that Apple doesn't support. Johansen's software gets around those restrictions."

There will always be those who keep working on technology hacks and new tech gets created. What will be intestesting is if creating such a "hack" or software for sale would be considered a criminial act.

More of the story can be found here.

Supreme Court to Review Microsoft-AT&T Patent Case

Today, the Associated Press reported that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a patent disput between Microsoft and AT&T. This particular suit has to do with the Windows programs distributed overseas, which already has me interested. But this has more to do with the speech-coding technology that they use...but here is the kicker.

Microsoft has admitted damages in the US...problem is, what they are fighting is that they have to pay for the same product in the foreign market.

Yet the US congress had already established in another case, that US patents can be extended for foreign sales. The juice is definately there. Read the full article below from the Wall Street Journal.

----------
Supreme Court to Review Microsoft-AT&T Patent Case
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Friday it would hear a patent dispute between giants Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp. over Windows programs distributed overseas.

An appeals court ruled that Microsoft had infringed on an AT&T patent for a type of speech-coding technology.

The outcome could be worth more than $1 billion to Microsoft if the justices find that the lower court ruling improperly extended U.S. patent protections to overseas transactions, said Dennis Crouch, a visiting law professor at Boston University.

"Almost every patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft asks for damages for U.S. sales as well as foreign export sales," Mr. Crouch said. Microsoft has acknowledged its liability for domestic sales.

Microsoft lawyers claimed the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of AT&T "threatens to impose massive liability on U.S. software companies" and could prompt companies to move their research facilities out of the country.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, invited by the court to offer his views, urged justices to take the case. AT&T's remedy "lies in obtaining and enforcing foreign patents, not in attempting to extend United States patent law to overseas activities," Mr. Clement said.

AT&T lawyers said that the ruling only protected its patent, which covers a program with a "speech codec" that digitizes speech. "Congress's congressional authority is to protect the rights of U.S. inventors, not U.S. infringers," they said.

Congress extended the reach of patent protections after the Supreme Court ruled against the holder of a patent on a shrimp deveining machine who complained that a manufacturer shipped component parts overseas to avoid U.S. patent law.

The high court had earlier refused to consider a separate case stemming from a jury's decision that Microsoft should pay $521 million for infringing patents held by Eolas Technologies Inc. and the University of California. Microsoft challenged a ruling that the award should be based on worldwide sales rather than domestic sales.

Copyright © 2006 Associated Press

IBM Sues Amazon Over Patents

It seems that everyone is patent crazy right now..or at least crazy to file them and not use them or not use them and go after those who make good with something slightly similar. Have we all not had enough. I'm not one to say that if people have good ideas then they are not entitled to file a patent and keep the idea theirs. The thing is...if one is not going to do anything with the patent except hoard them until technology advances enough where people need to use, I think its wrong.

But that is not what is happening in the case of IBM and Amazon.com. IBM is claiming that Amazon.com has "knowingly infringed" on five of IBM's patents. If anyone has seen a real patent book, especially one from IBM, where they must own thousands of patents, it would not be surprising if something was missed.

That said, this case is a little different, as many people pay IBM for a license to sue their patents, which they claim are the basis of Amazon.com's business model. If you want to read more on the story, keep reading below.

---------------------------------
Market Scan
Update -- IBM Sues Amazon Over Patents
Matthew Kirdahy, 10.24.06, 1:25 PM ET
On the eve of Amazon.com’s third-quarter earnings report, IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ) announced that it is suing the online retail powerhouse for “knowingly infringing” on five of IBM’s patents.

The most viable defense Amazon.com has against IBM, must somehow disprove the validity of the computer company’s patents. Suffice it to say, the retailer has some homework to do.

“They (Amazon.com) have people doing homework today that I can assure you,” said Ronald Mann, professor at the School of Law at the University of Texas.

Amazon.com did not return a call for comment, but will certainly field questions on the matter when it announces its third-quarter earnings Tuesday after market close.

The retailer’s stock was trading up on Tuesday, showing almost a 2% increase, or 56 cents, compared with the previous market close of $32.88.

IBM shares increased slightly, trading at $91.70.

Mann said that if a company can prove that the same product was in use prior to the issuance of a U.S. patent, then the current patent is void. But in this case, when dealing with Internet retail, a business barely in its teens, it’s unlikely the patents were in use before Amazon.com was established.

“These are high-quality patents and important IBM intellectual property that are core to Amazon.com’s business,” said Ed Barbini, IBM spokesperson. “In fact, Amazon.com has built its business model on these patents.”

In a statement, IBM said the lawsuit involves patents pertaining to Amazon.com’s customer recommendation and purchases, advertising, Web site navigation and data storage.

Mann said the patent that pertains to ordering items using an electronic catalogue is the oldest of the five patents. It was issued in 1994.

“There weren’t a lot of Internet retail stores back then, if any,” he said.

With this new lawsuit, Amazon.com is treading on familiar ground. Mann cited the 1-Click purchasing dispute between IPXL Holdings and Amazon.com, which Amazon.com won in November 2005.

IBM said it would prefer to deal with this without litigation, but more than a dozen attempts since 2002 to get Amazon.com to pay for using these patents proved fruitless. Meanwhile, IBM licenses these patents and others to companies who pay for them.

IBM would not name the companies that are licensed to use these patents.

Charles King, an IT analyst at the Hayward, Calif.-based Pund-IT, said it’s too early to say how this lawsuit would affect Amazon.com’s business. “Where there might be some concern, depending on how long that the suit is out in light of day, any pressure exerted on Amazon.com would come either from the company’s partners or from the large institutional shareholders,” King said. “They could decide that there is a potential liability there."

King also said IBM prides its innovation in the world of technology on intellectual property and certainly values privacy. Taking this issue to the mats is uncharacteristic of the organization, so this approach might get IBM exactly what it wants – just payment.

The company spends about $6 billion on research and development annually. In the past 13 years, IBM has earned more U.S. patents than any other company in the world. Last year, it was granted nearly 3,000 patents.

“The implications of the lawsuit, if it went to court, could be pretty fundamental for Amazon.com if a judge rules in IBM’s favor,” King said. “And the fact that this intellectual property has been licensed would suggest that other companies believe there is value in this material.”

Internet Censorship

Finally, after much talk between geeky friends, programming associates and teenagers, and hearing their views about censorship, someone is doing something (officially) about censorship of the Internet. For all the hoopla about the power of the Internet and how it brings people together, how its a "different way of communicating", the attempted censorship of it proves that its just "another" form of media that can be controlled...(or at least the attempt is there).

I'm not saying watching to make sure kids don't find porn sites shouldn't be done, in my view, that is responsiblity and the preservation of youth and not necessarily censorship. I'm talking about governments or corporations preventing grown, concenting adults, access to information. So, Amnesty International launched a campaign against Internet censorship.

Amnesty International on Sunday accused the world's Internet firms of colluding with repressive regimes to curtail online freedom.

The human rights group launched a campaign against Internet censorship, singling out Yahoo, Microsoft and Google for complying with Internet censorship in China.

"The Internet has become a new frontier in the struggle for human rights," said Kate Allen, director of Amnesty's British wing.

Check out the full article here.

Digital Entertainment World - Hong Kong

I'm excited to be asked to be a guest speaker at Digital Entertainment World 2006 Conference in Hong Kong. It will be held August 19-21, 2006 at the Disneyland Resort.

Patent Laws are a joke!

I cannot possibly be the only one on this earth that thinks that the current state of affairs concerning patent laws are completely laughable. Case in point, Blackberry. Yes, i happen to own one and yes, i am Canadian and we Canadians tends to huddle around each other when things get bad...but seriously, anyone with a sliver of a brain can see how NTP, the US company that claims they have patents infrindged by RIM (Research In Motion) the maker of the Blackberry is just completely bogus and should not be able to stand up in court. I mean...doesn't someone have to had created something, made something...made it work?

Do we all understand here that NTP never created "a Blackberry like" device? Do we get that they didn't even CREATE a technology, not even a fake technology that failed...or even worked? They patented an "idea". Its like if I went out in the 30's or 40's and tried to (and successfully) patented "any moving vehicle that can penetrate the earth's outer atmosphere." Wow, wouldn't i be rich now. I wouldn't have had to even create it, let alone prove that it could be done. I just have to prove that no one else thought of it first. What a load of rubbish.

I have recently seen an approved patent for a Web technology...approved not that long ago...that could sink at least 10 companies. The thing is, if the US patent company in their diligent research had even looked hard enough (read: done a Google search), they would have seen that there was a patent pending on the same thing from years before...and yet...they approved it. So that's more money and more legal hullaballoo that has to take place to fight the patent that should never have been approved.

There are articles written, in regards to the Blackberry case, that the US Patent office doesn't have enough people to do the research. So hire them, or don't offer the service! if you can't do it right, then don't do it! Do they not realize that markets, technologies....entrepreneurship itself is at stake?

NTP doesn't even plan to develop the technology...they never did. In fact, they are planning to go after every other company that "enables mobile devices to receive email". Nice. And then what? huge license fees forever that instead of helping an industry develop, mature and innovate...stifles it because consumers can't take the bills?

The next major hearing is scheduled for February 24th, and if unsuccessful, could force RIM to shut down its service in the US and halt sales of the devices.

Other's are getting on the bandwagon...though last week, a technology patent dispute was settled when the UK High Court ruled in favour of Research In Motion (RIM), maker of the BlackBerry wireless email device. The ruling revoked a patent held by Inpro Licensing, which, had it been upheld as valid, could have disrupted services to about 375,000 UK BlackBerry users.

But what about RIM. Just say they win and don't have to pay. Fighting this in court for years will certainly erode any research and development they might normally be doing. they just won't have the dough to move on and compete.

I think perhaps i'm not conveying my anger properly. I just don't understand a government that keeps offering services that are so bad they are actually dangerous. I think Slate has got it right with their recent article, Weapons of Business Destruction: How a tiny little "patent troll" got BlackBerry in a headlock.

I don't think i could have said it better myself.

No Tech At The Beach!

I just got back from the Bahamas. the abaco island. a little retreat, in the middle of nowhere. it was a wonderful, blissful five days with just me, the golf cart, a top 10 beach and several pina coladas - and no internet connection.

why, you ask, would i want an internet connection? well, its more that i need to check on my business and SMS and phone calls with my staff don’t cut it when customers write and say they didn’t receive the goods they ordered.

I managed to scam a man’s wireless internet connection that was next store to my friends condo. i could see through the window that he had his place set up like NORAD. One stand alone and three laptops. Is that was a legal “consultant” needs these days (as he described himself).

the connection was dodgy at best and if i moved, ever so stealthly five feet between the trees and a boat, i could get the solid internet connection…that i now had to pay for. how much you ask. $40.00 US for the week. can you believe it? what a rip off…

it went down all the time…with reports of “fibre down” situations constantly and it was slowest thing since 1200 baud. well maybe no, but it was slow.

apparently, it will eventually be replaced by a true and solid connection…not one bouncing off the islands, literally. it doens’t help the “consultant” had a great connection with this “private” guy but when the guy suddenly died, he took the passwords with him.

ah island life. even the making of drinks is a slow process.

for me, its more…45 minutes away is the US..with all the power needed to be connected and i can’t even get a GPRS connection on my phone. apparently the GSM connection is a new thing. most people’s phones don’t work there. what’s the big deal?

it capitalism at its best and at its worst. protection of culture and the people has prevented progress at the rapid pace that we all expect to be at. but maybe that’s a good thing. after all, isn’t that why you pay to go to places like that…to wind down?

nah, i don’t buy it.