TechBytes

Should Internet application providers be liable for illegal material such as pornography, copyright violations and civil rights infractions that pass through their “pipes” or through their service? The general principle has been that, so long as the provider passively allows traffic to flow through and does not look at or interact with the material, that provider exists within a “safe harbor” and is not legally liable.

Here in Geneva at the World Health Organization’s Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, there is a really bad idea floating around.

Intellectual property has always been an important foundation for a growing global economy.

The use of “short codes” is one of the most recent innovations in wireless communications.

Despite a couple years of debate about network neutrality, rarely have concrete proposals emerged from those who advocate for this government control of the Internet.

France is reaching a whole new level on hypocrisy over trade and intellectual property rights.

The most serious disease that afflicts public officials is arrested development.

For 10 years, anti-TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) activists dreamed that Thailand would become the first developing country to use compulsory licensing to vitiate patents and thus facilitate the wholesale theft of innovative pharmaceutical products.

As Congress and the FCC consider calls from activist groups demanding restrictions on how network companies manage their networks, they should begin with the understanding that Internet bandwidth, like everything else, is a scarce commodity and must be managed to give businesses and consumers the kind of speedy and robust Internet that we have all come to depend on—both now and in the future.

Ask any police officer in any state, county or city in America and they will tell you that they have the authority to pull over any driver who is driving erratically.