July 2012

[Commentary] The global cyber-arms race is a reality.

By deploying a computer worm known as Stuxnet in a covert operation intended to damage Iran’s equipment for enriching uranium, the United States crossed a line. Stuxnet was designed to do physical harm. What if other nations do the same — and do it to us? The U.S. government has revealed little about its offensive activities in this sphere. We think this is shortsighted. Two years ago, the National Research Council found that the government’s policy and legal framework for offensive cyber-programs was “ill-formed, undeveloped and highly uncertain.” Is it any different today?

An open, vigorous debate is needed about the threat of cyberwar and the potential response. We had a decades-long debate about nuclear weapons, and it was healthy for the country and the world. We ought to bring the discussion about offensive cyber-conflict out of the shadows.

The gloves have emphatically come off in the patent war between Apple and Samsung Electronics.

A courtroom confrontation, scheduled to begin July 30, is only one of dozens of suits and countersuits around the world involving these two smartphone giants. But this one promises to be more lively than most. It’s a jury trial, set in Silicon Valley, in a federal district court in San Jose, California. The document discovery and deposition-taking by the corps of lawyers on both sides, running for months, will be rolled out in this showdown. The broad themes of the accusations on each side are well known by now. Apple plans to build its case using its Korean rival’s own words against it. An unredacted version of Apple’s trial brief bluntly states that Samsung was well aware that its smartphones and tablets bore a striking resemblance to Apple’s iPhone and iPad and that the issue was one the company discussed internally.

Samsung does have some ammunition of its own. Specifically, some 2006 internal design presentations that outline a mobile UI similar to the one that ultimately debuted on the iPhone, a handy before-and-after-the-iPhone-handset comparison and some internal Apple emails that it claims suggest “Apple’s ‘revolutionary’ iPhone design was derived from the designs of a competitor — Sony.” Add to that Samsung’s claim that Apple’s lawsuit is anticompetitive and its argument that the iPhone maker should pay it for using patented technology, without which it “could not have become a successful participant in the mobile telecommunications industry,” and next week’s trial is shaping up to be a contentious one indeed.

McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of the business consulting giant, has just published a lengthy study on “unleashing value and productivity through social technologies.” The short version is that things like improved communication and collaboration from social media in four major business sectors could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion in value to the economy. The value is mostly through added productivity. Improved consumer focus as well as better-functioning teams are two other benefits.

The State Department released its latest sober diagnosis of human rights abuses in China, along with some gentle encouragement to Beijing to do better.

Michael Posner -- the assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor – said that in meetings the State Department addressed China’s abuses of free expression on the Internet and in public, its persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, and its inhumane labor practices, among other human rights issues. For their part, Chinese officials raised concerns about the United States’ record on human rights, particularly in areas of discrimination and prison conditions. Critics say that merely raising concerns with the Chinese government, as the United States does in this dialogue each year, is an exercise in diplomatic futility. The State Department insists that the discussions are one facet of a larger strategy.