July 2012

Apple-Samsung Patent Battle Shifts to Trial

Patent trials are part bombast, part boredom. Lurid accusations of corporate skulduggery and deceit quickly give way to a mind-numbing slog through the technical details and vague language of patent claims. A jury will be asked to sort through all that to settle a dispute between Apple and Samsung Electronics in a federal court in San Jose (CA). The jury trial is the latest phase in a global campaign of smartphone patent litigation that began more than two years ago. The legal clashes mainly pit Apple against rival smartphone makers whose handsets are powered by Google’s Android software, notably Samsung, HTC and Motorola Mobility, which Google bought last year. Dozens of lawsuits and countersuits have been filed in courtrooms around the world. Yet the escalating patent battle is more than just legal maneuvering. Patents can be powerful tools for determining the rules of engagement for major companies in a fast-growing industry like smartphones.

Big Bandwidth: Unlocking a New Competitive Advantage

[Commentary] Whoever is President in 2013, the message for policymakers remains the same: It is time to chart America’s big bandwidth map.

While we are enjoying a wireless upgrade, only a wired connection can provide the bandwidth necessary for “Big Bandwidth” services. When it comes to wireline access to the Internet, instead of discussing upgrades, we are discussing bandwidth caps, tiers and rising prices. Instead of witnessing investment for growth, we are witnessing harvesting for dividends. When it comes to broadband-fueled growth, it is as certain as tomorrow’s sunrise that a country talking about upgrades, not caps, will be better off in a few years; a country talking about caps, not upgrades, will not. This outcome is not inevitable. We can regain leadership by improving the math for wireline investment through policy choices that have the effect of lowering capital or operating expenses or by raising the potential revenues or competitive threat to incumbents or new entrants. We have done this before. In fact, every new communications network deployment or upgrade has been preceded by a policy change that had one or more of these impacts.

Police and Fire Networks Hit US Roadblock

Mississippi spent millions of dollars on equipment to help police and fire departments send video and other data to each other. But now the state can't turn its wireless network on. Federal officials recently pulled the plug because of concerns the Mississippi system and others like it won't be compatible with a national public safety network called FirstNet, which was authorized by Congress in February but is not scheduled to roll out for several years. Mississippi's case is an early example of the skirmishes likely during the years-long implementation of FirstNet, an idea that has been discussed since the 9/11 terror attacks but only now is getting off the ground. At a cost of at least $7 billion, the network is to supply common airwaves for use by local officials in an emergency and give them the ability to share videos and other large data files. Many regions already made plans for such networks and previously were backed by the same federal entities that are now putting on the brakes over concerns those networks won't be compatible with FirstNet.

WeHelpedBuildThat.com - More details on who invented the Internet

[Commentary] In his "You didn't build that" speech, President Barack Obama said: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

There are three problems with this claim:

Government alone didn't create the Internet.
Government didn't help build the Internet in order to create commercial opportunities.
Companies that succeed on the Internet do not succeed because of government.

By crediting just one institution, the President ignored the contributions of private researchers, businesses and academics.

Supporters of big government don't want to hear about the private-sector contributions to the Internet, but today the Internet is defined by individuals using it for their own purposes—communicating, accessing social media—and critiquing opinion columns. Many innovations are via free, open-source software. Perhaps we can all at least agree that the Internet boom began in the mid-1990s when the government shut down its remaining role, leaving the Internet to the power of the people.

The Birth of the Internet From Two Present at Creation

[Commentary] L. Gordon Crovitz dismisses as "modest" the government role in creating the Internet and claims that the private sector deserves "full credit" for its invention ("Who Really Invented the Internet?," Information Age, July 23). He asserts that it is important to understand the true history of the Internet because that story is "too often wrongly cited to justify big government." Crovitz is not alone in failing to understand the complex ecosystem involving government, academia and the private sector that has made our nation the world leader in information technology. Thanks in large part to U.S. government efforts to involve the private sector from the early days, companies—many newly created to pursue Internet technology—were able to build on the knowledge from these pilot projects to begin deploying what would become today's Internet. The story of the Internet reveals a remarkable success story of how government, academia and the private sector worked together over several decades to create one of the most revolutionary technologies ever invented and deployed on a large scale.

[Cerf is the co-inventor of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. Wolff directed the evolution of the NSFnet as it built on the Arpanet's success to become the primary internetwork for the U.S. higher-education community.]

Let the cybersecurity debate begin

[Commentary] The July 25 editorial “Slipping through the ’Net,” regarding the desirability of public debate regarding offensive cyberforces, argued, “We had a decades-long debate about nuclear weapons, and it was healthy for the country and the world.” Cyberweapons are not at all like nuclear weapons, but the lesson is the same. The 2009 National Research Council report (of which I was an editor) that was cited in the editorial recommended that the United States conduct a broad, unclassified national debate about cyberattack policy. It also stated that the U.S. government should work to find common ground with other nations regarding cyberattack on such subjects as how the laws of war and the U.N. charter apply to cyberattack, the significance of nonstate parties that might launch cyberattacks and how nations should respond to such attacks. Both of these recommendations remain still valid.

[Lin is chief scientist for the National Research Council’s Computer Science and Telecommunications Board.]

AT&T gets go-ahead for $11 billion share buyback

The board of AT&T, the largest US telecoms group by revenue, authorized the repurchase of up to 300 million additional shares, representing about 5 percent of the company’s outstanding stock. Based on the closing price on July 27, the shares would be worth $11.1 billion. Randall Stephenson, chief executive, said by gaining approval from the board, AT&T would be able “to continue returning cash to our shareholders through dividends and buybacks while maintaining a strong balance sheet and investing in the future of our business.”

Data flooding society not being properly used, experts say

Despite its promise to revolutionize society, the deluge of data gushing from credit card transactions, social media posts, smartphones and other sources has largely gone unused because those gathering it often haven't a clue how to take advantage of it. If analyzed properly, experts say, this information tsunami could greatly enhance our knowledge, allowing for more accurate predictions about everything from our susceptibility to disease and natural disasters to our electricity needs and consumer preferences. Yet recent studies have found that much of the compiled material is ignored, mismanaged or lost -- particularly by businesses, which gather most of it.

Microsoft and Google battle for influence in the policy shadows

[Commentary] In recent years, a vast shadow army of law firms, public relations specialists, trade organizations, pundits, think tanks and academics has emerged to dominate the debate over Google -- and many of them are paid for their opinions.

The people framing issues of vital interest to us consumers, often seen as dispassionate analysts, are actually paid advocates, distorting our understanding of what's at stake and possibly influencing how regulators around the world are making decisions that affect the future of our daily lives in a Web-connected world. "With official lobbying, they're going in through the front door and trying to sell you an opinion and they're not trying to pretend to be anything but a hired gun," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. But the bigger universe of commentators who are paid on the side, she continued, "is so amorphous and so differentiated, it's difficult to try to put your hands around it. This is where policy may be unduly skewed by paid interests." Alas, engaging third parties is a time-honored tradition in the Capitol, used by a wide range of industries such as pharmaceuticals, utilities, automakers and cigarette manufacturers. Decades ago, the high-tech industry deplored how these old-line companies played politics. Today, it's working to perfect the method.

Sen Wyden wants to require warrant for GPS tracking in cybersecurity bill

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) plans to offer an amendment to cybersecurity legislation that would require law enforcement officials to procure a warrant before obtaining location data from a person's cell phone, laptop or other gadgets.

The bill — called the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act — hasn't seen any action since Sen Wyden introduced it last year with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). With the August recess and the presidential election on the horizon, the cybersecurity bill could be Wyden’s last chance to move the GPS measure through the 112th Congress. Sen Wyden argues his measure is a natural tie-in to the cybersecurity bill from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) because both are designed to update rules for collecting data in the digital age.

Benton

Search