Tech Scoop - Hot Technology Gossip

While the AOL/Time Warner merger has gone down in the record books as one of the worst mergers ever, I still contend that it could have gone much better if stronger management had been in place. Most specifically, there were obvious synergies between aspects of Time Warner and AOL -- but petty squabbles and turf wars kept most of those synergies from being realized. The most glaring and obvious of these was Time Warner Cable (or RoadRunner) and AOL. Both offered internet access, and it seemed perfectly reasonable to merge the two properties, and use RoadRunner to upgrade all those dialup users onto broadband, and then keep them engaged with all the Time Warner content. Of course, the Time Warner content people freaked out about content on the internet of course, so that would never have worked -- but the failure to link up RoadRunner and AOL never made any sense.

In fact, the two services began aggressively competing with each other. Then, after three years, someone finally realized that maybe the two should work together and made an announcement saying so. Of course... an announcement without action is worthless. So, another year goes by and another exec trots out with an announcement that the two divisions will work closely again. And again... nothing. Give it almost another year... and yet another announcement. Sense a pattern? In the end, the two groups never actually did combine, and with today's announcement that Time Warner is selling off the cable business entirely, it just puts an exclamation point on all these years of keeping the two businesses separate. Of course, in selling off Time Warner Cable, it will also likely lead to speculation that the company will sell off AOL (or merge it with Yahoo -- remember that plan?) as well -- though, as an entirely separate entity.

While I tend to be skeptical of mergers based on vague "synergies," it's still rather amazing that in all this time, no one at Time Warner ever got these two divisions together -- and now the company may end up selling each off separately. In the end, this was a deal that only worked out for the investment bankers. Remember, they love to convince companies to consolidate one year and diversify the next -- because they make money on both transactions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A US Congressional Representative has introduced a new bill that would make it illegal for US tech companies to assist any foreign country in attempting to censor the internet or in handing over data on users to the government except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes." This is targeted at companies such as Cisco, which has supplied some of the technology used in the Great Firewall of China, as well as Yahoo! which got into some hot water for supposedly handing over information to Chinese authorities on some critics of the Chinese government.

While the goal is certainly admirable, the implementation is troublesome. First, it's putting liability on tech companies for something they may not have much knowledge about (how countries are going to use the tech or whether the info is needed for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes."). Furthermore, where this is really hypocritical is that the law apparently does not apply to the US as well. While certainly not as bad as some other nations, the US has certainly requested data for questionable reasons, and has also been seen trying to censor parts of the internet at times. While I'm certainly not equating the efforts of US politicians to filter the internet with massive operations such as those seen in China, implementing this type of legislation does seem a bit hypocritical.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A US Congressional Representative has introduced a new bill that would make it illegal for US tech companies to assist any foreign country in attempting to censor the internet or in handing over data on users to the government except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes." This is targeted at companies such as Cisco, which has supplied some of the technology used in the Great Firewall of China, as well as Yahoo! which got into some hot water for supposedly handing over information to Chinese authorities on some critics of the Chinese government.

While the goal is certainly admirable, the implementation is troublesome. First, it's putting liability on tech companies for something they may not have much knowledge about (how countries are going to use the tech or whether the info is needed for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes."). Furthermore, where this is really hypocritical is that the law apparently does not apply to the US as well. While certainly not as bad as some other nations, the US has certainly requested data for questionable reasons, and has also been seen trying to censor parts of the internet at times. While I'm certainly not equating the efforts of US politicians to filter the internet with massive operations such as those seen in China, implementing this type of legislation does seem a bit hypocritical.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

theodp writes "I don't want my GTV. Excerpts from a newly-published Google patent application for Targeted Video Advertising: [1] 'Users may be allowed to skip particular commercials, but required to watch or accept a set number of commercials in order to watch a program. The required number may be, for example, a set integer, such as 11 commercials.' [2] 'The system...may also require the user to fully watch at least four promotions before the program will continue.' [3] 'The profile includes some demographic information of the user, such as income, age, and gender. This information may be obtained when the user registers for the video service.' [4] 'A commercial with the interactive format is an advertisement that requires user interaction to be completed (e.g., a survey).' Yikes."

This is only at the application stage, but it's difficult to see this getting anywhere. There are already interstitial advertising systems online that do exactly what appears to be described in this patent. But, even more to the point, in the past when companies have patented concepts such as preventing people from skipping over commercials, the backlash has been pretty loud.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

theodp writes "I don't want my GTV. Excerpts from a newly-published Google patent application for Targeted Video Advertising: [1] 'Users may be allowed to skip particular commercials, but required to watch or accept a set number of commercials in order to watch a program. The required number may be, for example, a set integer, such as 11 commercials.' [2] 'The system...may also require the user to fully watch at least four promotions before the program will continue.' [3] 'The profile includes some demographic information of the user, such as income, age, and gender. This information may be obtained when the user registers for the video service.' [4] 'A commercial with the interactive format is an advertisement that requires user interaction to be completed (e.g., a survey).' Yikes."

This is only at the application stage, but it's difficult to see this getting anywhere. There are already interstitial advertising systems online that do exactly what appears to be described in this patent. But, even more to the point, in the past when companies have patented concepts such as preventing people from skipping over commercials, the backlash has been pretty loud.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The old "accepted wisdom" was that folks in Europe communicated via SMS text messaging, while folks in the US were mainly doing internet-based instant messaging. There were a variety of reasons for why things developed this way, but it was a generally accurate statement for a while. However, even early on, some of us began wondering what would happen as the two worlds started to merge. That is, as mobile phones became more powerful and acted more like handheld computers, wouldn't users start to realize that instant messaging would save them a lot of money in terms of data costs. Especially with advanced phones like the iPhone, it seemed inevitable that "expensive" SMS would start to run into trouble. And, in fact, that appears to be happening. A new study in the UK (where SMS text messaging is huge) has shown that, as people start using instant messaging applications, their use of SMS text messaging drops significantly. The one exception, by the way, is with older users, who are comfortable enough with SMS and don't seem as interested in using IM on their phones. Either way, this has to be a concern for mobile operators who have a tendency to assume that high-priced services will always remain high-priced and in high demand.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mathew Ingram notes that Jimmy Wales's company, Wikia, has unveiled a new version of its search engine. The basic premise of the search engine, allowing users to edit search results the way they can edit Wikipedia pages, is clever. But I think Wales is going to have difficult making the project successful. The fundamental problem, I think, is a matter of raw mathematics: there are far, far more potential web searches than there are pages in Wikipedia. Last month I critiqued the business model of Biographicon, a site that's attempting to create a Wikipedia-style page for everyone. I argued that they're likely to have trouble making it work because any given page is unlikely to have the critical mass of contributors necessary to make the wiki model work. I think Wikia's search engine is likely to suffer from an even more serious case of the same problem. Wikipedia achieves this critical mass by limiting itself to subjects that are "notable." But a search engine can't have those kinds of limits. People want a search engine to have good responses even for (maybe especially for) obscure searches. And by definition, it won't be possible to get a bunch of people to contribute to the page for an obscure search term.

Closely related is the problem of bias. Wikipedia strives to take a neutral point of view, presenting all viewpoints fairly and accurately without passing judgment on which one is correct. This often leads to pages being longer than they would otherwise be, but they tend to be reasonable representations of what various people think on the subject at hand. This approach won't really work with a search engine because people expect the most important search results to be at the top, and deciding which results are the most important is an intrinsically subjective decision. If Wikia's search engine ever became popular, it could be beset by edit wars that would make the infamous Danzig/Gdansk edit war look tame. Companies pay search engine optimization firms thousands of dollars to improve their Google ranks, a successful Wikia search would likely succumb to the same kinds of pressure, and the site appears to lack Wikipedia's well-defined procedures for resolving disputes.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Brookings Institute has called for the government to set up a National Innovation Foundation modeled after the National Science Foundation. The idea is to offer government grants to companies doing innovation. This is an interesting idea, but it raises a variety of questions -- including the government's role in funding innovation. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with government funded innovation, as long as one realizes that it, by default, distorts the market in some manner. The NSF is really designed to help fund the sort of basic research that is much more difficult to get outside funding for -- but which could have some commercial potential. When you start talking about the much more amorphous "innovation," it's going to be a lot more focused on commercial potential from the get go -- which raises some questions about why the government needs to be involved at all. If the market is taking care of innovation, then is government funding necessary?

Along those lines, it also brings up the same old questions about how do you determine what innovation really is -- and how do you measure it. The Freakonomics guys just asked a panel of folks how to measure innovation and their answers diverged wildly. The good news is that only one out of the five responses seemed to think patents should be a part of the measure (one other answer mentioned patents as a measure, before noting that using patents to measure innovation was "largely hokum.") Even the one guy who does support using patents in some measures, notes the problems with doing so. Also, the research he quotes in favor of patents only shows that patents are valuable to patent holders (not something anyone disputes). That has little to do with whether or not they encourage or accurately measure innovation.

If we stick with the definition that innovation is the process of successfully bringing new offerings to market in a way that the market wants, then I think it's not as important to "measure" innovation, as to create the right ecosystem for it. That would mean encouraging competition (which drives companies to keep out innovating each other) and take away unfair roadblocks to competition. If a National Innovation Foundation can figure out a way to do that, then it might be quite interesting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The infamous and questionable JPEG patent held by Global Patent Holdings (GPH) and used to threaten just about anyone online (including the Green Bay Packers, CDW, a resort in Florida and others) who happened to have a JPEG on their website has been put on hold for a while. While the folks behind it somehow got Forbes to write a puff piece making it sound like the patent holder was the victim, if you look at the details, it was clear that this was an abuse of the patent system. It was a questionable patent from the beginning, and an earlier review of the patent had every claim thrown out. However, during that process, the patent holder tried adding a ton of other claims -- one of which the USPTO actually allowed to go through. It's that single remaining claim that's being used to sue lots of folks. However, with the USPTO recently agreeing to re-examine that one claim, those being sued have asked the court to put all of the cases on hold until the re-exam is done. As we've pointed out, all too often, judges refuse to wait for the Patent Office to re-examine a patent -- which is a big problem, since so many re-exams result in rejected claims.

However, that's not the case here. Last week, the judge ruled that it made sense to stay the case until the re-exam was complete. GPH protested this move, noting that the patent had already been re-examined before, and that process took many years during which GPH couldn't enforce the patent. However, the court reasonably responded on a few different points. First, it noted that while the length of the re-exam last time was quite long, with only one claim it shouldn't take as long this time. Second, it pointed out that while it's true the patent was re-examined once before, since this claim is a new claim, it was not re-examined -- only examined. Finally, and most importantly, the court noted that if the courts had not waited, a bad decision likely would have resulted, as they would have had to assume the later rejected claims were valid.

"a significant amount of time and effort in claim construction and other litigation would have been wasted if we had forged ahead without the benefit of the PTO’s examination (and subsequent rejection) of those claims."

This should, effectively, keep GPH from filing any more suits on this patent until the USPTO has a chance to review the remaining claim. While other lawsuits can be filed, a quick pointer to this ruling should hopefully keep those cases from going anywhere until the USPTO has reviewed the patent. Oh, and by the way, the judge appears to not have been even remotely swayed by the totally unrelated fact that the original inventors of the patent were old and feeble, which GPH had used in trying to get a sympathy vote. It was so inconsequential the judge doesn't even mention it in the ruling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The infamous and questionable JPEG patent held by Global Patent Holdings (GPH) and used to threaten just about anyone online (including the Green Bay Packers, CDW, a resort in Florida and others) who happened to have a JPEG on their website has been put on hold for a while. While the folks behind it somehow got Forbes to write a puff piece making it sound like the patent holder was the victim, if you look at the details, it was clear that this was an abuse of the patent system. It was a questionable patent from the beginning, and an earlier review of the patent had every claim thrown out. However, during that process, the patent holder tried adding a ton of other claims -- one of which the USPTO actually allowed to go through. It's that single remaining claim that's being used to sue lots of folks. However, with the USPTO recently agreeing to re-examine that one claim, those being sued have asked the court to put all of the cases on hold until the re-exam is done. As we've pointed out, all too often, judges refuse to wait for the Patent Office to re-examine a patent -- which is a big problem, since so many re-exams result in rejected claims.

However, that's not the case here. Last week, the judge ruled that it made sense to stay the case until the re-exam was complete. GPH protested this move, noting that the patent had already been re-examined before, and that process took many years during which GPH couldn't enforce the patent. However, the court reasonably responded on a few different points. First, it noted that while the length of the re-exam last time was quite long, with only one claim it shouldn't take as long this time. Second, it pointed out that while it's true the patent was re-examined once before, since this claim is a new claim, it was not re-examined -- only examined. Finally, and most importantly, the court noted that if the courts had not waited, a bad decision likely would have resulted, as they would have had to assume the later rejected claims were valid.

"a significant amount of time and effort in claim construction and other litigation would have been wasted if we had forged ahead without the benefit of the PTO’s examination (and subsequent rejection) of those claims."

This should, effectively, keep GPH from filing any more suits on this patent until the USPTO has a chance to review the remaining claim. While other lawsuits can be filed, a quick pointer to this ruling should hopefully keep those cases from going anywhere until the USPTO has reviewed the patent. Oh, and by the way, the judge appears to not have been even remotely swayed by the totally unrelated fact that the original inventors of the patent were old and feeble, which GPH had used in trying to get a sympathy vote. It was so inconsequential the judge doesn't even mention it in the ruling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story