Blog

I hate to bring back up the topic of net neutrality, since those of us who worked on the issue for a decade are pretty much sick to the teeth of it, and we're all enjoying a brief respite from net neutrality as we await the results of Verizon's court challenge of the FCC's authority to impose net neutrality rules.

. . . (ahhhhhh)

But I can't help but point out that, in the current retransmission dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS, somehow CBS has managed to turn the major concern of net neutrality proponents on its head.

I was talking with a lady, who is probably in her late 50s, when she told me she was going to start looking for a different job. See, she’s a teller working in the branch of one of the country’s largest banks, and the bank is making some cutbacks, turning its full-time tellers into part-timers (at some branches anyway).

I asked the next question, but I was pretty sure I already knew the answer: How many hours was the bank willing to let her work? Under 30, she said, which just so happens to be ObamaCare’s dividing line between those who must be covered with employer-provided health insurance and those who don’t.

Not going to do a full dissertation on the topic, but the term "patent troll" is being thrown around quite a bit too broadly these days. For many, ANY non-practicing entity is, by their definition, a patent troll.

We think this is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with an entity simply being in the patent business. Whether or not some entity is a "patent troll" should be determined by their behavior, not simply by their business model.

What brings this to mind? Noticed a patent application published by USPTO on July 25th, filed by Intellectual Ventures. If you're in the business of inventing things and filing patent applications, you are not a patent troll.

Why did I happen to notice? Well, the application has some very prominent names listed as inventors, including Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold. Those are names that stand out.

I'm probably going to regret the title of this blog post, not because I'm afraid to say that Mike Masnick committed a logical fallacy, but because he commits logical fallacies so often that I should reserve this title for a SERIES of blog posts . . . 

[Note: Title edited]

Anyway, a few weeks ago I did a blog post on the House IP Subcommittee's second hearing of the new copyright review process, this one themed copyright and innovation.

My main point was that there was actually very little criticism of the copyright status quo during the hearing, but you can read that blog entry for yourself.

My blog post aroused the ire of Mike Masnick over at TechDirt, which they often do (and which frankly isn't hard to do). But the nature of Masnick's complaint about my post was truly amazing, as Masnick made really obvious logical fallacies in supposedly rebutting my points.

This item is from a few weeks ago, but Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) had a good piece in The Hill where she calls for stronger IP enforcement action by the administration.

An excerpt:

Who is going to take the U.S. seriously if we continue to deny a performance right for sound recordings as the rest of the developed world already does? We’re in a league with North Korea, Iran and China that still fails to recognize these rights. Will other countries take advantage of U.S.-based innovation if we aren’t willing to take reasonable actions against foreign-based rogue websites that threaten U.S. health and safety?

We continue to allow 25 percent of all Internet traffic to go to illegal rogue websites. It helps criminal enterprises thrive but it kills American business and hurts consumers. Creators benefit from the certainty of consistent and strong enforcement.

The story so far, told through a series of links in chronological order:

1. Senator Durbin's letter of intimidation to IPI
2. Wall Street Journal editorial on Durbin's letter
3. Chicago Tribune editorial on Durbin's letter
4. Cato Institute's reply to Senator Durbin
5. IPI blog entry on the Durbin episode
6. IPI letter replying to Senator Durbin

So IPI went out on a limb on the sequester. We wrote a paper praising the sequester and explaining that the sequester represented the mildest down payment on the kind of spending restraint that is necessary if we have any hope of setting our fiscal house in order. We created charts to explain just how small the sequester restraints were. We blogged and gave speeches and did TV and went on the radio to sell the sequester. We got coverage in print media. We did our part--we more than did our part.

And we were right.

Check out Steve Moore's piece in today's Wall Street Journal.

The $150 billion budget decline of 4% is the first time federal expenditures have fallen for two consecutive years since the end of the Korean War.

If you want to know what political intimidation looks like, this link will take you to a PDF of the letter sent to IPI (and allegedly over 300 organizations) about their support of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

I'm not going to excerpt any language from the letter in this blog entry, because you just have to read the entire thing.

Durbin's office probably made a major mistake sending this letter to think tanks like IPI (and the Cato Institute), because we don't cow to things like this--in fact, we see them as opportunities to point out political intimidation. The letter was reallly designed for corporations who are members of ALEC, to make the occupants of the executive suite call up their government affairs office and ask what the heck Company X is doing with this organization that generated a letter from a U.S. senator. It's subtle but strategic intimidation of free speech and freedom of association, and IPI intends to respond along these lines.

The Obama administration has steped in, ignoring the law it passed, to fix a problem of its own making. It has decided it can continue paying the lion's share of the health insurance premiums for Hill staff being forced into the health insurance exchanges.

There is an enlightening (and thus infuriating) article at National Review where a reporter described how she has been issued three free "Obamaphones" in the past month. It's a must-read.

The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.

Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.

In today's copyright review hearing, in the heat of his passion to point out that there are many exciting new ways to distribute content that don't involve nasty old paternalistic devices like copyright, one of the witnesses mentioned how enthusiastic the bands Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are for free distribution.

Um, you might want to update your gallery of CopyLeft heroes, according to an article entitled "Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and other digital pioneers sour on 'pay what you want' music":

Not long ago, many hoped the Internet would emerge as a music fan's Shangri-la, a utopian world where any track, no matter how obscure, was available for free, record labels were extinct and artists made a good living because their fans chose to reward them. Acts like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails championed this brave new world. "The way things are," Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails' frontman, told CNET in 2008, "I think music should be looked at as free. It basically is. The toothpaste is out of the tube and a whole generation of people is accustomed to music being that way."

But that dream has turned into a nightmare, according to Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke.

There's a strong and provocative piece in the Australian press today by novelist and author Linda Jaivin on how the proposed changes will cause economic losses to authors.

Jaivin writes powerfully and persuasively about the importance of intellectual property protection for creators. The occasion of her piece is proposed Australian legislation that would remove some author protections in the form of statutory licenses, and in the course expands Australia's fair use exceptions.

Over the last several years the U.S. patent system has received a great deal of attention. However, patent pools, one area that was previously largely ignored, are now coming under greater scrutiny.

This morning, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held its second in a series of hearings that form the beginning of a review of current copyright law. And while the first hearing was largely comprised of copyright critics, today’s hearing featured those who make their livings and who are innovating new technologies based on the copyright system.

Along those lines, of particular interest was witness William Sherak, whose company handles the 3D conversion of blockbuster movies. In addition to getting committee members to don 3D glasses, Mr. Sherak pointed out that both the technology his company developed and the workers he employs are all dependent upon the copyright system.

The list of witnesses for Thursday's Judiciary Committee hearing on copyright and innovation has been released:

Sandra Airstars
Executive Director, Copyright Alliance

Eugene Mopsik
Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers

Tor Hansen
Co-Founder, Yep Roc Records/Red Eye Distribution

John Lapham
General Counsel, Getty Images

William Sherak
President, Stereo D

Webcast link: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_07252013.html