[JackSpratts]

Only half?

Illegal software and film downloads exhaust university computer networks

Up To Half Of Data Network Capacity Taken Up By Film, Music, And Software Downloads

Films, music, and computer software spreading in the Internet's peer-to-peer networks take up huge portions of the Finnish universities' data transfer capacity.
For example, last autumn up to two-thirds of the server capacity at the University of Turku was spent on transferring data in the peer-to-peer networks.
The University of Helsinki's corresponding figure is 30-50 percent. The number of students making use of the peer-to- peer networks is in the hundreds in every university.

"At least 90 percent of the information circulating in the peer-to-peer networks is protected by copyright law", says Mauri Rosendahl, information security manager at the University of Helsinki.
Rosendahl explains that the authorities intervene in the illegal dissemination of copyright-protected material whenever international copyright organisations report on any wrongdoings. Usually this happens a couple of times a week, in both the Helsinki and Turku universities.
Belonging in peer-to-peer networks in itself is not illegal. According to Finnish law it is not illegal to copy films, music, or computer software for one's own use. Many of the peer-to-peer networks, however, require that the members allow access to their downloaded material for further circulation. This, in turn, is illegal.

Last Wednesday, Tampere University of Technology resorted to expelling three students who had been identified as distributors of illegal material.
In other universities such drastic measures have not been introduced as yet. In Helsinki and Turku, computer connections have been temporarily disconnected, while in some other universities of technology students have been issued with warnings.
"Network supervision can be problematic. We cannot decide for other people what kind of usage is good or bad. The peer-to-peer networks cannot be closed down as the scientific community benefits from them as well", explains information security manager Mats Kommonen from the University of Turku.
Peer-to-peer networks cause problems mainly at universities where the student accommodation connections are not separate from the university network.
"At the end of the day, the number of students guilty of software and entertainment piracy is fairly small, but even a few pirate servers can drastically slow down other information traffic", says information security manager Kaisu Rahko from the University of Oulu.

Executive director Antti Kotilainen of the Anti-Piracy Centre in Finland, CIAPC, sees the decision by Tampere University of Technology to expel students suspected of piracy as an encouraging step in the right direction.
"There is no justification for the usage of networks that were set up with tax-payers' money for the purpose of acquiring free entertainment for the students", Kotilainen emphasises.
Kotilainen feels Finland should act even more forcefully to stop the use of the peer-to-peer networks for copyright violations. In the United States and Great Britain, surveillance campaigns have effectively reduced the illegal copying of music. This has put a stop to the downward trend of the music industry's sales figures.
It is estimated that each year the 50,000 Finnish peer-to- peer network users copy from each other over 340,000 films, almost 800,000 CDs' worth of music, plus hundreds of thousands of computer games and programmes.
http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/engli.../1101978960379


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meet interesting people. Make new friends.

A Slow, Steady Descent Into Madness...
Ben Hurwitz & Greg Staiti

We had the day marked on our calendars for weeks: Tuesday, March 29, 2005. The reason: the Supreme Court was hearing oral argument in Brand X v. FCC, a case which presented serious administrative law implications (involving the interplay between stare decisis and Chevron deference). This seemed like the perfect case on which to hear our very first Supreme Court oral argument.

General admission to oral argument at the Court (with a capital "C") is free. As Professor Ippolito (or Parisi, for the 1Ls) taught us, free admission creates a queue problem: since competition for spots in line isn't measured by actual dollar values, it takes the form of opportunity cost of time waiting in line. Thus, those who value attending argument most will arrive earliest. We'd heard the horror stories about people spending hours waiting in line to get into the building just to be denied within eyesight of the finish line. Nonetheless, we figured that: (a) our boring case certainly wouldn't attract too much attention; and (b) people who wait in line for more than a few hours before attending oral argument are just plain crazy, and there can't be that many crazies, right?

Wrong. Our first mistake was not checking the daily docket in advance. In addition to our case, the Court was also hearing MGM v. Grokster, an important internet file-sharing copyright case. Of course this would attract every zit-faced teenage tech-head who wanted to witness first-hand the death or salvation of free song-swapping. In fact, approximately 90 percent of those in line were probably there for Grokster and had never even heard of Brand X. (On the flip side, we learned a lot more about copyright law from fellow line-waiters than we'd ever cared to know.)

Despite the line, we still hoped our robust 1 a.m. arrival time (that was not a misprint) would be plenty early to put us at or near the front of the line. Wrong again. Despite the ridiculous hour, we met a line that had already begun to stretch around the sidewalk
adjacent to the Court.

Our time in line proved that, like many things in life, the journey can be more interesting that the destination. We were amazed by the cottage industry that is Supreme Court line-waiting. Most of the folks in line were professional "line sitters," holding spots for attorneys for ten dollars an hour. The professionals came comfortably-dressed, equipped with food, blankets, umbrellas, and (most-importantly) folding beach chairs. We law students naively overdressed and brought little food, but we did have books and coffee!

In a perfect example of just how screwed-up general admission to the Court is, the next person to arrive after us, at 1:30 a.m., was the wife of one of the litigating attorneys for the Grokster case. When such a well-connected attendee has to wait in line for nearly ten hours to hear argument, you know there is a problem with the system. (On the positive side, her husband did arrive at 5 a.m. - understandably, he could not sleep - with coffee and donuts for her, which she was nice enough to share.)

As the minutes slowly crept towards morning, we felt that every aspect of human endurance was being tested. Boredom - check. Try arguing against the merits of free music sharing at 3:30 in the morning. Physical exhaustion - check. Let's just say that a cold, damp sidewalk with a briefcase pillow is not exactly a Craftmatic Adjustable. Mental exhaustion and delirium - check. We'd been up for over 24 hours before the Court's doors even opened. Physical exertion - check. With the wind and misting rain pummeling us throughout the early morning, we now understood how lost campers could actually die of exposure. And let's not even begin to discuss the lack of bathroom facilities.

The night passed with good conversation, several trips to Union Station for relief, and a two-hour hunt on the ground for a screw from a pair of eyeglasses. We also learned all sorts of British euphemisms not fit for print in this paper as our new friend became extremely agitated with each perceived line cutter.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, 7:30 arrived and general admission tickets were handed out. Our numbers: 45 and 46 respectively. We'd heard that numbers below 50 were nearly a sure thing, so we felt good.

At long last we were ushered into the Court at 10:55. We rushed through security, stuffed our bags into lockers, and checked our coats. We were then guided to (silently!) take our seats. After ten hours of waiting in line in the cold, the stuffy courtroom was nearly enough to put us to sleep. Adding insult to injury, the Court didn't even approach the legal issue we were there to hear (they spent their time on communications law or something ...). Thus, the long-sought fruit of our labors ended up as just a chance to glimpse our nation's judicial beacons from the back of the courtroom.

Collecting ourselves and our belongings at the end of the one-hour argument, we trudged off to the Metro to head home. Taking stock of the day, we asked ourselves: was it worth it? Probably - every lawyer (or lawyer-in-training) should attend a Supreme Court argument at least once in his or her life. But will we soon repeat it? Only under pain of death ...
http://www.docketonline.com/news/200...s-921622.shtml


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 Rivals Reach Tentative Deal for Adelphia
Andrew Ross Sorkin and Geraldine Fabrikant

Time Warner and its bidding partner, Comcast, have reached a tentative deal to acquire Adelphia Communications for nearly $18 billion in cash and stock, executives involved in the discussions said yesterday. Adelphia, the nation's fifth-largest cable TV operator, has been in bankruptcy protection since 2002.

The deal, if ratified by Adelphia's creditors and the bankruptcy judge, would be Time Warner's first major acquisition since its disastrous merger with AOL in January 2000.

The transaction would be the latest in the rapidly shrinking cable industry as providers try to offer not just television, but also high-speed Internet and telephony services. The industry has come under increasing pressure as satellite and telecommunications rivals also try to transform their businesses with similar services.

The tentative deal, which was presented privately to the bankruptcy judge yesterday, would give Time Warner and Comcast control of Adelphia's 5.3 million subscribers in 31 states, including systems around Los Angeles and in upstate New York.

Adelphia sought bankruptcy protection after its founder, John J. Rigas, and two of his sons were accused of looting the company of billions of dollars. Mr. Rigas and one son, Timothy J. Rigas, were found guilty and await sentencing. A hung jury was declared for Michael Rigas.

Time Warner and Comcast appear to have won the auction for Adelphia despite an 11th-hour bid on Tuesday from Cablevision Systems for $16.5 billion in cash. An executive close to Adelphia said the company chose the bid from Time Warner and Comcast "because it was far and away the best deal actually on the table."

The executive dismissed Cablevision's bid as being "far behind on price and a realistic timetable," but added that the bankruptcy process allowed for it and other bidders to challenge the offer.

Spokesmen for Time Warner, Adelphia and Comcast declined to comment last night.

Under the agreement, the executives said, Time Warner and Comcast would pay Adelphia bondholders about $13.5 billion in cash and about $4.5 billion in warrants for stock in a company that would be created by combining Time Warner's cable business and Adelphia. The deal includes a protection mechanism known as a collar that guarantees the value of shares in the combined company when shares are sold.

As part of the transaction, Comcast will contribute about $2 billion in cash and swap its 21 percent stake in Time Warner's cable business in exchange for about two million of Adelphia's subscribers, the executives said. Time Warner is paying about $3 billion in cash and borrowing about $8 billion secured against the combined business.

The next step for Adelphia is to present the deal to the bankruptcy court as part of a reorganization plan; a majority of each class of creditors must approve the plan. A single bondholder can block the plan if he or she owns enough of the debt.

William R. Huff, known for being a tough negotiator, is one of the largest bondholders. The funds he manages are said to hold more than a $2.5 billion stake in Adelphia, including a blocking position in the bonds with the first claim on Adelphia's assets after the banks.

Mr. Huff's company, W. R. Huff Asset Management, had set the minimum price of $17.5 billion for the company.

For Time Warner, the deal would catapult its cable business from 10.9 million subscribers to about 14 million. The deal would also allow Time Warner to spinoff its cable unit into a publicly traded business.

Several analysts said that the merger would benefit Time Warner because it would increase the size of the company's holdings. "They are paying a fair price and Time Warner will get control of the Los Angeles market as a result of this deal, which is a fast-growing market," one investor who spoke on condition of anonymity said.

However, not all investors are so happy to see Time Warner extend its cable holdings.

Several analysts, including Richard Greenfield of Fulcrum Global Partners have argued that Time Warner already owned enough cable. It is the nation's second-largest cable operator after Comcast.

"My concern is that acquisitions have not benefited the stock price of companies in the media sector over the last several years," Mr. Greenfield said. Other critics have said they would prefer to see Time Warner buy more programming.

Since the AOL Time Warner merger, the chief executive, Richard D. Parsons, has focused on paying down debt and calming a frayed corporate culture torn about by conflicts created in the merger. His major effort was the sale of Warner Music to a group of private equity investors.

The company recently settled a complaint with the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission over accounting irregularities related to AOL. Those cases had precluded Time Warner from entering into a transaction in which it would issue stock.

Mr. Parsons did consider one deal. He made an all-cash bid for MGM Studios. However that studio was sold to a consortium led by Sony.

Several analysts have said that they think Mr. Parsons was eager to get the Adelphia deal done to begin to put his stamp on the company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/bu...a/08cable.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ethernet Forum Plots Death Of SONET
John Leyden

Cheaper bandwidth at higher speeds is promised with the introduction Tuesday of a new telco standard 'Carrier Ethernet'. The standard is backed up by an international certification programme from trade association the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF).

Carrier Ethernet promises wide area networking scalable beyond 10Gbps using ubiquitous Ethernet technology as an alternative to traditional SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) telephony infrastructures. The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) said Carrier Ethernet could deliver business connectivity at tens of Gbps as well as broadcast-quality video on demand as a fraction of the cost of traditional telco technologies such as ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and SONET. "Carrier Ethernet will kill SONET," Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe told El Reg.

To infinity and beyond

Over the last five years or so, Ethernet has expended from its primary role as a local area network technology to become the basis behind many metropolitan area networks. Having all but seen off seen off Token Ring and marginalised Frame Relay, Ethernet's champions are beefing the protocol up for a "title fight" against traditional telco technologies such as SONET.

Nan Chen, president of the Metro Ethernet Forum, explained carrier Ethernet would have five attributes. These are: scalability to 10 Gbps and beyond, end-to-end protection, backwards compatibility with older telco protocols (such as Time Division Multiplexing), the ability to deliver robust service level agreements and 'rock solid' quality of service features. "We want to develop a clear definition of Carrier Ethernet and to encourage interoperability between different vendors," he said.

The MEF has developed Carrier Ethernet technical specifications and implementation agreements to promote interoperability and deployment of the technology worldwide. The result of first testing of equipment under the MEF Certification Program is due to be announced at the Carrier Ethernet World Congress in Berlin, Germany, September 2005.

The net effect

Analysts IDC estimates that more than 200 million Ethernet switch ports were shipped worldwide last year. In the 31 years since Ethernet was conceived by Bob Metcalfe at Xerox PARC, as a simple way to network computers via a standard interface, more than three billion ports have been shipped. "The technology has little relationship to how it looked in 1973," Metcalfe, now advisory director at the MEF, explained.

"I see Ethernet developing in four directions: UP, DOWN, OVER and ACROSS. UP in speed and... DOWN to the 8 billion processors shipped each year that are not yet networked. Ethernet is increasingly moving OVER wireless links - WiFi, WiMax, ZigBee and others - which is ironic as it was derived from the 1970 Alohanet packet radio network. And now it's moving even further ACROSS the chasm between LANs and WANs with the development of Carrier Ethernet," he said

The Carrier Ethernet market should exceed $2.7bn in equipment revenues by 2008, according to an April study by Infonetics Research. IDC predicts Ethernet-based service revenues will exceed $19bn by 2007.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...rier_ethernet/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Skypecasting The New Trend In Peer-To-Peer File Sharing

Skype is an online software service that allows users to contact one another over the internet for free voice conversations. Podcasting is a personal broadcasting phenomenon in which users create digital recordings and post them on a web site for distribution to music players such as iPods or desktop PCs.

Technologically savvy users are merging these technologies to "Skypecast", using Skype's service to distribute recordings across the internet for free. This allows expert users to run their own mini-radio stations, which can be accessed by any Skype user. Skype does not actively support these uses, but encourages its users to find new applications for their service.
http://www.newstarget.com/006593.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Internet Phone Customer Service Uncertain
Matthew Fordahl

Lured by the promise of a low monthly rate for unlimited domestic calls, Sherry Willis jumped at the opportunity to ditch the old phone company in favor of 8x8 Inc.'s Packet8 Internet telephone service.

The family of six - including two chatty teenagers - was so pleased with the quality and reliability of the $19.95-a-month "Freedom Unlimited" plan that Willis canceled her old phone service, which had been costing about $175 a month.

But last month, Packet8 e-mailed the Minonk, Ill., woman to say her family was on the phone for nearly 9,000 minutes, exceeding the limits of "Freedom Unlimited." The company wanted to put the Willises on a partially metered plan that would have cost about $200 a month.

So much for savings.

When Willis called Packet8's customer support, the agent refused to transfer her to a manager. Her request to speak with someone in billing was denied because, the agent said, they're swamped with phone calls. An e-mail address she was given bounced back as undeliverable.

"Steam started shooting out my ears," Willis said.

She posted her story to BroadbandReports.com, a discussion and news board for high-speed Internet users. Readers offered up 8x8 contacts - as well as suggestions that she call the Better Business Bureau and the Illinois attorney general's office.

After several days of trying, Willis finally started to get responses from 8x8. First, agents suggested she order a second phone line and cut down on usage. Both options didn't sit right with Willis, who pointed out the word "unlimited" in the ads.

After another round of e-mails, the dispute appeared resolved.

Bryan Martin, 8x8's chief executive, said Willis was incorrectly misidentified as a business user because her family's usage was abnormally high.

He said that the terms and conditions of the provider's contract state that Freedom Unlimited is for "normal, single residential use."

Martin said it's rare that a real home user is misidentified as a business customer and that the Willises' account would be flagged so the family isn't bothered again.

Willis isn't convinced. She says she's concerned the company will continue to monitor her family's calling activity and that she's actively looking for another provider.

"I fear that Packet8 is going to continue to monitor us. I'm going to have a little spy sitting in there checking to see how much I use," she said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...CTION=BUSINESS


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A New Reality in Video Games: Advertisements
Matt Richtel

In video game vernacular, which of these commands seems out of place: throw punch, slay dragon or view Sprite billboard?

It's a trick question; they all belong.

At least they do to Mitchell Davis, who says he believes that advertisements and product placements will soon become as integral to video games as story lines and action.

Until now, ads have appeared occasionally and haphazardly in video games. But Mr. Davis, chief executive of Massive, a new advertising agency with headquarters in New York, hopes to bring a more aggressive marketing approach to interactive media - he wants to put up billboards and make product placements for mainstream advertisers in the cyberworlds of sports, shooting and strategy games.

For now, the Massive ads will appear only in games played on personal computers connected to the Internet. But eventually Massive's technology will work in games played on consoles like the Sony PlayStation 2 and the Xbox, if they have an Internet connection. The Internet link allows Massive's software to modify the ads as players progress through a game.

"As you move through levels and zones you'll see fresh advertising," said Mr. Davis, 43. "You might see an ad for Mötley Crüe one minute and for T-Mobile the next."

Mr. Davis, a former executive at Britannica.com, has signed deals with 10 major game publishers, including Take-Two Interactive and Vivendi Universal Games, which together will include Massive's software in 40 games by the end of this year . He has also signed agreements with advertisers like Dunkin' Donuts, Intel, Paramount Pictures, Coca-Cola, Honda and Universal Music Group to place their ads with the game publishers.

Industry analysts and executives said that Mr. Davis was not the first entrepreneur trying to jump-start the video game advertising business, but that he was probably the farthest along in building an advertising agency around the idea.

There are, however, plenty of skeptics. Some game players worry that such ads will be distracting, while some game developers are concerned about having to modify their designs to satisfy advertisers.

"I don't want to pick up a sword and have it read Nike on the side," said Jeff Evertt, a video game player and programmer. But less intrusive product ads would not necessarily bother him, he said. Brian Fisher, another gamer and programmer, agreed.

"If the character drinks a Pepsi to get health points, it doesn't bug me," Mr. Fisher said.

Both Mr. Fisher and Mr. Evertt, who work at different video game studios, said they would be concerned if advertisers tried to dictate how and when the ads appeared.

"I don't want to have to go to Nike and get approval," said Mr. Evertt, speaking hypothetically.

Electronic Arts, the world's largest independent game publisher, has not signed a deal with Massive because its executives said the Massive technology had not been proved. They are also wary of possibly compromising the quality of their games for ad revenues that are still quite small.

"We're skeptical the promise meets the resource commitment," said Julie Shumaker, director of in-game advertising for Electronic Arts. The company currently sells ads in a variety of ways in games that are not played online. For example, some sports games have billboards for Burger King.

So far, those ad revenues have been limited. Electronic Arts, which had $4 billion in sales last year, for example, took in only about $10 million in revenue from placing commercial images.

That may change as game publishers seek new sources of revenue to offset the growing cost of producing games, which can reach $10 million to $20 million, excluding marketing expenses. At the same time, advertisers are looking for new ways to reach 18- to 34-year-old males, a sought-after audience that is increasingly abandoning television (and TV commercials) and spending more time playing video games.

The confluence of these trends is likely to make product placement in games more appealing.

"This is the next big way publishers are talking about growing their revenue," said Evan Wilson, an industry analyst with Pacific Crest Securities. Mr. Wilson added that the use of commercials was "almost inevitable in mass-market games."

A big challenge has been convincing advertisers that they can measure the effectiveness of their in-game advertising. To address this problem, Mr. Davis signed a deal in December with Nielsen, the company that tracks TV viewership, to use Massive's software to measure whether video game players are viewing the in-game commercial messages.

The software allows game publishers set aside locations inside a game to post ads. In one popular action game called Splinter Cell, for example, boxes on cargo ships are stamped with the names of advertisers.

The technology makes it possible to track how often a player comes across those boxes inside the game and reports back to the company over the Internet.

"Measurement is the key part of the proposition," Mr. Davis said. "Advertisers are looking for accountability."

Mr. Davis also said that ads could actually make a scene in a game feel more real. Not all game publishers and industry analysts agree, particularly if the ads interfere with the action.

Ms. Shumaker, from Electronic Arts, said full creative control was crucial for game developers. She added that if Massive proved its advertising approach to be profitable, Electronic Arts might well get more aggressive in its ad placements, though it would not hire an outside ad agency.

Smaller publishers, however, do not have the resources to go it alone, said Monika Madrid, who oversees product placement at Ubisoft, the publisher that makes Splinter Cell. She said Ubisoft had been very happy with its relationship with Massive.

Massive says it will pay a portion of the money it earns from advertisers to the game publishers. Mr. Davis said the publishers could eventually get ad revenue of $1 to $2 on each game sold. Ms. Madrid, however, said it was far too soon to know whether the partnership would lead to significant revenues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/te...game.html?8dpc


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I.B.M. Hopes to Profit by Making Patents Available Free
Steve Lohr

I.B.M. is renowned for its rich storehouse of patented inventions. It once again led the research sweepstakes in America last year, collecting 3,248 patents, more than any other company. And it earned more than $1 billion last year from licensing and selling its ideas.

So why has I.B.M. shifted course recently, giving away some of the fruits of its research instead of charging others to use it? The answer is self-interest.

Diverging from conventional wisdom, the company has calculated that sharing technology can sometimes be more profitable than jealously guarding its property rights on patents, copyrights and trade secrets. The moves by I.B.M., the world's largest supplier of information technology services and computers, are being closely watched throughout the business world.

Earlier this year, I.B.M. made a broad gesture toward what it called a new era in how it controls intellectual property. It announced in January that it would make 500 patents - mainly for software code that manages electronic commerce, storage, image processing, data handling and Internet communications - freely available to others.

And it pledged that more such moves would follow.

This month, the company said that all of its future patent contributions to the largest standards group for electronic commerce on the Web, the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, would be free.

I.B.M. is at the forefront, but companies in industry after industry are also reconsidering their strategies on intellectual property: What do you share? What do you keep proprietary?

The Internet, globalization and cost pressures are driving businesses to collaborate in the pursuit of higher productivity and profits, and to accelerate the pace of product development. That collaboration requires companies to share more technical information with corporate customers, suppliers and industry partners. The result, specialists say, is that the terms of trade in intellectual property, and the boundary lines, are shifting.

"The business world today is engaged in a huge experiment in figuring out what different parts of intellectual property should be open and closed," said Steven Weber, director of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. "The fate of many companies, and the strength of national economies, will depend on how the experiment turns out."

The change at I.B.M. began last May when Samuel J. Palmisano, I.B.M.'s chief executive, told John E. Kelly, a senior vice president, to lead a team to rethink how the company handles its intellectual property.

Mr. Kelly recalled his boss telling him, "This is a hugely important area, and I think we need to redirect our strategy and policy and practices." Mr. Palmisano, according to Mr. Kelly, then added, "If any company can take the lead on this, it's us."

Mr. Kelly, leading a 12-person group, traveled, studied, brought in outside specialists, and by last September concluded that more of I.B.M.'s homegrown ideas should be shared instead of being tightly held.

The shift, admittedly, is carefully calibrated.

I.B.M. is not forsaking its lucrative technology licensing business or pulling back on new patent filings. And the company is not giving away the technology for its mainframe computers, its proprietary database software and other complete products.

Instead, it is freely contributing the technology building blocks that allow broader communication across industry networks.

Such moves do carry risk for I.B.M.

"When you open some of your technology, it forces you to run higher up that economic food chain in your business," said Jim Stallings, an I.B.M. vice president for intellectual property and standards.

Another consideration is the need to keep intellectual property as both an offensive and a defensive weapon. The best shield against a patent infringement suit is often the threat that the target company may file a countersuit based on its own patent arsenal.

"The layer of technology that is open is going to steadily increase, but in going through this transition we're not going to be crazy," Mr. Kelly said. "This is like disarmament. You're not going to give away all your missiles as a first step."

Still, I.B.M.'s new strategy represents a response to a number of changes in the marketplace for ideas.

More and more innovation in business, company executives say, is occurring across cooperative information networks, which require open technical standards. (The Internet and the Web stand as proof of the success of that model; their public standards make low-cost, global communications possible.)

Companies in fields like health care, chemicals and car manufacturing are already working on standards for sharing more information. To create robust and widely used standards, companies have to make their own intellectual property - usually specialized software for handling information - available either for small licensing fees or free, as I.B.M. pledged to do for the Internet e-commerce group. The potential payoff is that open standards will help the entire industry grow faster, and may even work to the advantage of the company making the contributions.

"If you open up your technology and reveal quickly, people will build on your stuff," said Eric von Hippel, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of a new book, "Democratizing Innovation" (MIT Press, 2005). "It becomes more economically efficient to be open."

In its software business, I.B.M. has been a champion of open-source projects like the Linux operating system, on which programmers collaborate and share code. The patents it made available in January are for use in any open-source project.

Another development in recent years that pushed I.B.M. to reconsider its patent approach has been the surge in patent filings and lawsuits, including the rise of firms whose only business is to file patent infringement suits, known as "patent trolls."

"It seemed to us the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of companies blindly chasing patents, and blindly chasing the enforcement of patents," Mr. Kelly said.

There is also a sense of urgency to the intellectual property issue, I.B.M. executives say, because government officials in the United States, Europe, China and elsewhere are expected to make crucial policy decisions in the next year or two.

I.B.M., not surprisingly, wants a "balanced" intellectual property policy intended to maintain incentives for inventors and to foster open technical standards so collaboration can flourish. It supports proposals in the United States to make software patents more difficult to obtain, hoping to help curb the patent-and-litigate frenzy.

The company is particularly interested in a proposed law to harmonize patent rules in the 25 countries of the European Union. Many European countries, legal specialists say, effectively allow software patents already as computer-accomplished inventions, which cover hardware and software working in tandem.

A proposal last month by the European Commission would recognize and define software patents across Europe as computer-accomplished inventions. But it would also require patent holders sometimes to share the technology to create open standards.

The commission recommendation contains a provision that says software for allowing data sharing across different computer systems - interoperability, in computer terms - should be open. And interoperability, the commission added, should trump intellectual property rights, regardless of a company's patents. I.B.M., for one, is a strong proponent of that approach.

But the compromise is fiercely opposed by some open-source advocates, small businesses and politicians, who argue that the formal legal endorsement of software patents could slow innovation, invite lawsuits and mainly serve the interests of big American software companies.

In Europe, software is covered by copyright, which protects a complete software product; patents go further, restricting the use of individual ingredients of technology. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the commission proposal this summer.

Technology standards for data sharing and collaboration are the equivalent of trade agreements in the modern economy, said Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a vice president and technology strategist at I.B.M. "Anything that enhances interoperability has to be open," he said.

The message from Europe, Mr. Wladawsky-Berger said, is clear: if companies do not ensure openness in their voluntary standards groups, governments will step in to enforce it.

Still, software is malleable and tends to resist sharp boundary lines. Microsoft, for one, has resisted Europe's antitrust sanctions that seek to force the company to share its technology with rivals so that their products can operate smoothly with Windows server software. Microsoft initially argued that following the order could amount to giving away its valuable property to competitors.

Last Monday, under threat of new fines, Microsoft said it would meet most of the demands of the European regulators.

I.B.M. is taking a different path, though it, too, is driven by self-interest and competitive advantage. Even as it preaches greater openness and collaboration, the company is also intent on extending its use of patents in its big technology services business. For example, it has software patents for new mathematical formulas that can be used to optimize orders in supply chains for retailers or manage risk in financial markets.

"But in services, when you are co-inventing with a customer, you have to take a lighter hand on intellectual property," Mr. Kelly said. "It's very different from our proprietary tradition of 'it's ours and we'll license it.' "

Mr. Kelly added that I.B.M. was still feeling its way in determining what technology it was willing to share. "We don't know quite where this is headed, and the line will obviously evolve over time," he said. "But every action we take will be done with an eye toward striking this more subtle balance between proprietary and open."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/technology/11ibm.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

France Detects a Cultural Threat in Google
Alan Riding

As president of the French National Library, Jean-Noël Jeanneney has good reason to feel safe from the frequent incursions of American popular culture into contemporary French life. With its collection of 13 million books, the library is a reassuring symbol of the durability of French literature and thought.

Yet Mr. Jeanneney is not one to lower his guard. He grew alarmed last December when he read that Google planned to scan 15 million English-language books and make them available as digital files on the Web. In his view, the move would further strengthen American power to set a global cultural agenda.

"I am not anti-American, far from it," Mr. Jeanneney, 62, said in an interview in his office in the library's new headquarters overlooking the Seine river. "But what I don't want is everything reflected in an American mirror. When it comes to presenting digitized books on the Web, we want to make our choice with our own criteria."

So, when Google's initial announcement went unnoticed here, Mr. Jeanneney raised his voice. In a Jan. 23 article in the newspaper, Le Monde, entitled "When Google Challenges Europe," he warned of "the risk of a crushing domination by America in the definition of the idea that future generations will have of the world."

Europe, he said, should counterattack by converting its own books into digital files and by controlling the page rankings of responses to searches. His one-man campaign bore fruit. At a meeting on March 16, President Jacques Chirac of France asked Mr. Jeanneney and the culture minister, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, to study how French and European library collections could be rapidly made available on the Web.

But where there is a will, is there a way?

Mr. Jeanneney is the first to acknowledge that he has a clearer idea of where he wants to go than how he will get there. On the technology required, for instance, he said that Europe had the choice of trying to develop its own search engine or of reaching agreement with Google, the world's most popular Internet search service, or perhaps with other Internet search providers, like Amazon.com, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Money, too, is a variable. Newly rich from its stock offering last summer, Google expects to spend $150 million to $200 million over a decade to digitize 15 million books from the collections of Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, Oxford University and the New York Public Library.

In contrast, the French National Library's current book scanning program is modest. With an annual budget of only $1.35 million, it has so far placed online some 80,000 books and 70,000 drawings and will soon add part of its collection of 19th-century newspapers.

"Given what's at stake, $200 million is very little money," Mr. Jeanneney said of Google's planned investment in its program, known as Google Print.

Specifically, he fears that Google's version of the universal library will place interpretation of French and other Continental European literature, history, philosophy and even politics in American hands. This, he says, represents a greater peril than, say, American movies, television or popular music.

Google says his fears are unfounded. It notes that, as with Google, page rankings on Google Print will be defined by public demand and not by political, cultural or monetary variables. Further, according to Nikesh Arora, vice president for European operations for Google, the company fully supports all moves to make information and books available on the Web in all languages.

"Our intent is in no way to impose one culture or another," Mr. Arora said in a telephone interview from London. "Our intent is to offer the information responding to the priorities of users. And we are willing to support others, either as an active partner or with technical support. We are supportive of the French National Library and are ready to do anything to facilitate development of its expertise."

Still, it is no coincidence that concern about Google Print is being expressed first in France. It has often tried to persuade the rest of Europe to close ranks against what it calls Anglo-Saxon culture. And with digitized books, Mr. Jeanneney argued, "European ranking should reflect a European vision of history and culture."

But which Europe? That of the French, German and Spanish languages? That of the 25 members of the European Union? More crucially, will European governments or the public have the power to define the books and criteria used in response to search requests?
Even with questions unanswered, however, President Chirac now seems bent on promoting a European parallel to Google Print. And if the rest of Europe does not echo his call, France may well go it alone. After all, no one cares more about French culture than France. And thanks to Google, it seems, Mr. Jeanneney has spawned a new national cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/te.../11google.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Microsoft Agrees To Pay Gateway $150Milion To Settle Suit

Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, has agreed to pay Gateway Inc. $150 million over four years to settle a legal dispute and the companies will work together on the marketing and development of Gateway personal computing products.

As part of the settlement announced Monday, Gateway will release all antitrust claims against Microsoft based on past conduct.

Gateway shares rose 7 cents to $4.15 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Microsoft shares climbed 11 cents to $25.05 in morning trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Gateway expects to use the funds for marketing initiatives, including advertising, sales training and consulting, as well as for the research, development and testing of new Gateway products that can run current Microsoft products and Microsoft's next-generation operating system and productivity software.

"Gateway continues to enjoy a strong relationship with Microsoft and we're pleased to put these legacy legal issues behind us," said Wayne Inouye, president and CEO of Gateway. "We look forward to even greater collaboration with Microsoft going forward as we work together towards the future of computing."

Gateway's claims arose from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in the mid-1990s, where Gateway was specifically identified in U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings as having been impacted in its business by practices on which he ruled against Microsoft.

Under the statute of limitations, the time period for Gateway to bring claims against Microsoft based on these findings of fact expired in late 2003. Before the expiration date, Microsoft and Gateway agreed to extend the period in order to explore a mutually beneficial solution.

The companies said today's agreement resulted from a recent mediation. Microsoft denies any liability to Gateway, but said it is "very pleased to be able to resolve our past differences in a constructive manner that will allow us to continue our focus on the interests of our mutual customers."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan...=apn_tech_down


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cuban's Defense Of E-File Sharing Will Protect Fair Use
Jonathan Smith

Mark Cuban is best known for being the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and starring in the reality television show "The Benefactor." Yet, Cuban's real claim to success is based on his emergence as a tycoon in the media content and computer industry. It is interesting that he recently offered to support StreamCast Networks and Grokster in the controversial MGM v. Grokster case that will soon be decided by the Supreme Court. Although StreamCast's peer-to-peer software Morpheus, along with Grokster, allows users to download copyright infringing media content, Cuban is willing to financially support the defense because he believes that "If Grokster loses, technological innovation might not die, but it will have such a significant price tag associated with it that it will be the domain of the big corporations only."

Cuban believes that if the original ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is overturned, the content industry and consumers will be greatly harmed in the long run. If anyone is qualified to talk about how to succeed in the information economy, it's Cuban. He co-founded the Web radio company Broadcast.com that was sold to Yahoo! at the climax of the technology bubble in April 1999. He owns many other media companies and a lot of intellectual property.

In his blog, www.blogmaverick.com, he describes with great optimism the possibilities of new ways to distribute media in the Internet age: "Content could be delivered digitally in thousands of different ways, and the number of methods for distribution would only expand over time. To me, this meant the power of the gatekeepers would diminish, and the power of independent content creators and owners would increase." Just as Cuban made a place for him self within the industry, he believed that media content in its current legal form threatens traditional media companies - the gatekeepers - because they can no longer have complete control over distribution.

In order to better understand the implications of the case, one must know a small amount of history regarding a copyright property ruling Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, otherwise known as "The Betamax Case." Sony Corp. of America was defending its right to produce a device that could easily copy any movie or television program that comes through a coaxial wire. In 1984, the Supreme Court sided with Sony Corp. of America and created a precedent that a maker of technology - that can be used to infringe copyrights - is not guilty of any crime for creating such technology. According to the EFF Web site, it was this ruling that allowed devices such as VCRs, "photocopiers, personal computers, Cisco routers, CD burners and Apple's iPod" to exist.

It is now more than 20 years later, and many things have changed. Now, the major media-based entertainment industries - the movie industry and the music industry - have formed groups that actively work to whittle away at fair use rights. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is a trade organization that represents the seven biggest movie companies: Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. And the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents many music producers and distributes. A thing to note is that Sony, the hero in the Betamax case, is now backing both of the organizations that are working to erode the privileges granted in the first case.

The original court decision created what is now called the doctrine of "fair use." This generally means that you can make backup copies of media you own as long as you don't distribute the copies. If Grokster loses in the Supreme Court, then this doctrine will no longer serve a purpose, as the very devices we use to copy will fall to legal jeopardy.

In fact, since the Betamax trial, there have been more recent movements in the legislative area that have almost destroyed fair use. The most significant action was the creation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA). After the DMCA was signed into law in 1998, it became illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" or to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in" a device which overrides a control feature. These provisions were intended to prevent consumers from easily buying mass produced devices that overcame protections created to stop the copying of media- unless the media companies allow it. The DMCA has good intentions, but it opens up a Pandora's box of problems.

DVDs are copy protected by a security key called a Content-Scrambling System (CSS) and it is illegal to break that protection to back up your DVDs. Now that CDs are beginning to ship with copy protection, the DMCA will create a situation where it would be illegal to copy your new CD to your iPod to listen to it if the creator of the CD forbids copying using Digital Rights Management (DRM) software.

Cuban does not hesitate to speculate about what could happen in the future if the Supreme Court overturns the appeals court ruling in the Grokster case. "It won't be a good day when high school entrepreneurs have to get a fairness opinion from a technology oriented law firm to confirm that big music or movie studios won't sue you because they can come up with an angle that makes a judge believe the technology might impact the music business," Cuban said.

The fight for Peer-2-Peer software is more than just a fight for the right to steal. It is a struggle to avoid harmful relegation whose absence has been a big part of the Internet's rapid growth. Hopefully the Supreme Court will not overturn the previous ruling in the MGM v. Grokster case, and will set a clear precedent that protects "fair use" in the future.
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2005/04/...e-922046.shtml


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As if

Music Moguls Trumped By Steve Jobs?
John Borland

When Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs walked into the suites of top record label executives in 2002, iTunes software in hand, he was welcomed as a trailblazer to a digital music future.

Now, nearly two years after Apple's iTunes launch, record executives have become worried that they have inadvertently ceded too much power over their industry to this charismatic computer executive.

Frustrated at what they see as Jobs' intransigence on song pricing and other issues, some record executives are now turning their hopes toward other partners, particularly mobile phone carriers eager to get into the business of selling music. They see this new focus as a way to broaden the digital music business, and lessen Apple's dominance over their market in the process.

"The (wireless) carriers' economics are aligned with us much better than Apple is aligned with us," said one senior executive at a major record label, who asked to remain anonymous due to his company's ongoing relationship with Apple. "The mobile market is very important, as important to us as the PC."

Jobs is given undeniable credit for jump-starting what is now a fast-growing digital music market, but some music executives complain that his company, with 70 percent of the digital download market, is setting the ground rules for their own business.

While iTunes is designed to propel the sales of iPods--more than $1 billion worth in the last quarter alone--the labels complain that Apple's policies are insensitive to their goals and limit their ability to grow their digital business even faster.

For example, Apple wants to sell all its songs for 99 cents, a single price point that's easy for consumers to understand. But the record labels have pressed for the ability to vary prices to maximize their own sales. They want to sell older titles at a discount--like the $9.99 CDs available in most record stores--and charge more for popular songs to take advantage of market demand.

Jobs also has refused to license Apple's antipiracy technology, called FairPlay, to rival MP3 player makers, and has blocked music formats from other companies such as Microsoft from the iPod. This makes iPods and the iTunes store incompatible with rival digital music devices and stores, fragmenting the market in a way the labels fear ultimately limits sales.

"We hate the current situation," one top record industry executive said, referring to the issue of incompatibility between different companies' music devices and services. "There is one man who's going to decide this...No record company by itself can basically tell Steve Jobs, 'You're not going to get our catalog unless you open up FairPlay to Microsoft.' We can't do it together."

Apple declined to comment for this story.

Despite the critics, Apple continues to win praise from many customers and industry analysts. They point to Apple's clear success in spurring the download business as proof that Jobs is on the right track with pricing and other policies.

"Apple really understands that pricing models are critical," said Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg. "I think 99 cents resonates with consumers as a sweet spot."

Many customers like the convenience and pricing. "iTunes really sucks you in," said Jackie Kerr, an iTunes customer in Baltimore, Md. "I don't mind the 99-cent cost, though sometimes I do feel stupid for paying $1 for some horrifying 80s band I don't want to admit liking."

When iTunes launched, most of the record labels were more squarely in Apple's camp. Part of the reason was Apple's limited role in the computer industry: They saw the Macintosh market--less than 5 percent of the total U.S. computer market--as a small, relatively safe way to experiment with Jobs' ideas.

Instead, iTunes, replicated on the PC platform a few months later, exploded into a popular hit that almost overnight defined the standards for the digital music business. Apple's iTunes store captures close to 70 percent of digital music sales, according to the most recent analyst figures. The iPod holds a similar share in the portable MP3 player market.

"I think it's safe to say that Apple has generated so much interest in digital music downloads as a paid service, the labels clearly understand Apple's influence," Gartenberg said.

Wireless, the music industry's new savior
For the most part, the labels have remained loath to push too forcefully against the company that still accounts for the vast majority of their new online sales.

Instead, they are turning hungrily to the mobile phone market, where phones are slowly gaining the capacity to play music. Executives note that there are many times more cell phones than iPods in the world, potentially offering a far larger digital music market. Already full-song download services for cell phones are operating in Europe and Asia, and are expected to come to the United States as soon as this year.

Part of the mobile market's attraction comes in pricing. Consumers around the world have shown they will eagerly pay $2.50 or more for a ring tone, a mere snippet of a song that costs just 99 cents for the full version at iTunes. Labels see these consumers as receptive to variable prices for different songs.

But some music executives also describe mobile carriers as simply a better potential partner than Apple. Like the labels, the carriers' bottom line depends directly on selling content, while Apple's profit sheets depend on hardware sales.

The carriers' interests were underlined in the case of Motorola's iTunes-enabled cell phone, announced nine months ago but now delayed. As described by the companies, the phone would let people transfer their iTunes-purchased songs from computers to the phone.

Publicly, carriers say they are interested in the idea and will offer the phone to their customers if there is demand.

"Ultimately, the consumer is the boss," said John Burbank, Cingular Wireless vice president of marketing. "We're going to create products that best match what the consumer wants to do."

But mobile industry sources say some carriers have been critical of Motorola's move, which would encourage consumers to buy music on a computer rather than over the phone network. Because most phones are sold with a substantial subsidy from the wireless carrier, their lack of interest has set back the release of the iTunes phone.

"Carriers subsidize phones and features when they drive network usage," said Iain Gillott, a wireless industry consultant. "Yet here was a phone that I was supposed to sync to my PC so I could buy music from Apple. Why would the carriers subsidize that?"

None of this means the labels are likely to stop dealing with Apple. Indeed, the companies continue to work closely behind the scenes discussing issues such as CD copy protection and new promotions. And label executives are quick to commend Apple for doing more than any other company to create the digital download business.

And any business relationship, particularly in new arenas, is bound to have its bumps, insiders say.

"The relationships are really better than ever," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "Everybody understands where the other side is coming from. Everybody understands that there is a market here, and everybody's trying to find a path. The dialog is healthier and more wide-ranging than it's ever been."
http://news.com.com/Music+moguls+tru...3-5671705.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Soma-FM in the car man

Minneapolis Envisions Citywide Wi-Fi
Steve Alexander

Minneapolis is about to become an unwired city, creating a universal wireless Internet access network available to every citizen, visitor, business and municipal facility within city limits.

On Wednesday, the city will unveil a request for a proposal for a privately owned, $15 million to $20 million citywide wireless and fiber-optic network. It is likely to use the Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) technology that has created several hundred Internet access "hot spots" for laptop computer users in metro coffee shops, bookstores, airports and hotels.

A contract for the wireless and fiber network should be signed later this year, with initial service likely to begin 12 months later and citywide service six to 12 months after that, Minneapolis officials said.

The citywide wireless network is necessary to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector to the city's databases, city officials say.

But the network also would be available to every individual and business in the city.

Consumers would be able to buy broadband access of 1 million to 3 million bits per second for $18 to $24 a month -- a bit slower than wired cable modem service but about half the price. The network also is expected to create an economic incentive for businesses to locate in Minneapolis.

"If someone gets off a plane at the airport and signs up for Minneapolis Internet service, they can sign on with one password anywhere in the city," said Bill Beck, director for business development in the city of Minneapolis' computer operations. "Cities that have that will be in a much better position to attract new business opportunities and economic development. It will be the ante to get into the game in the next several years."

No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal. That is a markedly different approach than in Philadelphia, where the city will own and operate a new Wi-Fi network.

Minneapolis officials decided not to build their own wireless network because of high construction and administrative costs, Beck said. In addition, city officials were concerned that cities offering high-speed Internet service have been accused by large telephone companies of competing with the private sector, he said.

Minneapolis officials envision putting Wi-Fi antennas atop Minneapolis city buildings, light poles and traffic signals and also using a high-capacity fiber-optic network to combine all the wireless signals for connection to the Internet. Fiber-optic connections also would be provided to business customers who need more capacity than wireless connections can provide.

As part of the network's start-up, the city hopes to incorporate into it all Internet hot spots already operated by private businesses such as coffee shops. Jim Farstad, a telecom consultant to the city, estimated there are 300 to 400 Internet hot spots operating in Minneapolis.

Wi-Fi hot spots often are about 300 feet in diameter, but they can be linked to create a citywide network, as they have been in the city of Chaska, which charges consumers $16 a month to use the service, called Chaska.net. In the city of 22,000 people, about 25 percent of the 7,500 households subscribe to Chaska.net, said Dave Pokorney, Chaska city manager.

Suburban pressure

Minneapolis wireless network project leaders said the inexpensive networks operating in suburban Chaska and Buffalo put pressure on Minneapolis leaders to do the same. In addition to the political pressures, the city also needed an improved network that could speed up data traffic in its 47 main buildings and extend high-speed access to 300 other buildings -- all at a savings, Beck said.

The city also wanted to replace expensive cellular radio communications used by police cars with a cheaper and faster wireless data network. There also was a desire to provide broadband to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the city's population that either isn't served by high-speed Internet access or can't afford it.

"Our goal is a common, ubiquitous network infrastructure that is seamless and provides a common communications backbone for all the needs of the city," Beck said.

City officials think that no single company can build the whole network and that bids are likely to come from consortiums consisting of a prime contractor and several subcontractors. The city has had talks with 26 potential bidders, including Qwest, Minnesota's largest phone company; equipment suppliers Siemens and Alcatel, "and some new players," Beck said.

Cable TV company Time Warner expressed interest in the project, but Qwest was noncommital.

"We need to look at the city's request for proposal, but we're interested in seeing how our resources meet their needs," Time Warner spokesman Lance Leupold said.

"We cannot offer any comment until we have read and reviewed the request for proposal," Qwest spokeswoman Cyndi Barrington said.

Other bidders

Other local firms considering bidding are those that already offer more expensive wireless Internet services to Twin Cities businesses. StoneBridge Wireless Broadband of Eden Prairie and Implex.net Inc. of Minneapolis offer WiMax, a next- generation wireless Internet access technology that travels several miles instead of Wi-Fi's 300 feet but requires costly receiving equipment that consumers usually can't afford.

Tim Johnson, StoneBridge director of strategic alliances, said his firm might bid on some aspects of the proposed network, probably as a subcontractor, but isn't sure the project is practical.

"There is a place for Wi-Fi hot spots. But the cost-effectiveness of a border-to-border Minneapolis city Wi-Fi network is in question," Johnson said.

Stuart DeVaan, CEO of Implex.net, said his firm is testing a Wi-Fi network that would serve businesses and consumers along Nicollet Mall for $39 a month. His firm will bid on the Minneapolis network using a "meshing technology" that allows Wi-Fi hot spots to exchange data with each other, effectively expanding their range.

"Using antennas on light posts and power poles, we can in theory cover every square inch of Minneapolis with Wi-Fi," DeVaan said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5342733-2.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faster Handoff Between Wi-Fi Networks Promises Near-Seamless 802.11 Roaming

Software developed by two computer scientists at UC San Diego cuts by 90% the time it takes to hand off from one Wi-Fi wireless network to the next -- overcoming a major obstacle in Wi-Fi roaming.

Road warriors may no longer have to stay put in an airport lounge or Starbucks to access the high-speed Internet via an 802.11 Wi-Fi
network. Thanks to software developed by two computer scientists at the University of California, San Diego, the time it takes to hand off from one Wi- Fi wireless network to the next can be dramatically shortened -- overcoming a major obstacle in Wi-Fi roaming.

Jacobs School of Engineering professor Stefan Savage and graduate student Ishwar Ramani have a patent pending on the basic invention behind SyncScan, a process to achieve practical, fast handoff for 802.11 infrastructure networks. Their study is published in the Proceedings of the IEEE InfoCom 2005.

“Wi-Fi offers tremendous speeds if you stay in one place or at least within 100 meters of the same access point,” said Savage, an assistant professor in the Computer Science and Engineering department and academic participant in the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology. “SyncScan is a handoff algorithm which can cut the time it takes to switch from one Wi-Fi access point to another by a factor of a hundred over existing solutions. This is a requirement for demanding applications like Voice over Wi-Fi, where even short interruptions can disrupt the illusion of continuous connectivity.” Savage notes that SyncScan also allows mobile devices to make better handoff decisions and therefore improve signal quality overall.

At present, Wi-Fi handoffs are cumbersome and time-consuming. Not until the access-point signal weakens substantially and begins losing packets of data does a Wi-Fi-enabled laptop, PDA or mobile phone begin scanning for a stronger signal. At that point, it broadcasts requests on all channels to find nearby access points. The result: a delay of up to one second, during which any packets may be lost. That may not seem inordinate when downloading data, but it can be unacceptable if the user is trying to listen to Internet radio, watch a streaming movie trailer or talk on a Wi-Fi phone.

“Today most Wi-Fi users accept being tethered to a single location in exchange for the broadband speeds that Wi-Fi offers,” said Ph.D. candidate Ramani. “But increasingly they want to be able to make Voice of IP (VoIP)phone calls or stream multimedia while commuting or on the move, and a one-second disruption can seem like an eternity.”

The SyncScan solution proposed by Savage and Ramani is a method to continuously monitor the proximity of nearby 802.11 access points. Instead of looking for surrounding access points just when the current signal is running low, a Wi-Fi device with SyncScan regularly checks signal strengths nearby — but only for very short periods of time. These times are picked to precisely coincide with regularly scheduled “beacon” messages sent by all standard Wi-Fi access points. The process eliminates the current need to start from scratch when looking for a stronger signal, and replaces the long scanning delay with many small delays that are imperceptible to the user.

To test their SyncScan algorithm, the researchers used a laptop running a voice application while walking between two areas of the UCSD campus served by neighboring Wi-Fi access points. “We used a popular VoIP called Skype which uses UDP [user datagram protocol] packets exchanged between two clients for voice communication,” explained Savage. “Using SyncScan with a measurement interval of 500 millseconds, handoff delay was virtually imperceptible – roughly 5 milliseconds. Repeating the tests without SyncScan, the average handoff time was 450 milliseconds, but ranging up to a full second in some cases.”

The researchers also observed a big difference in the number of lost data packets that can contribute to loss of data or voice dropout. Zero packets were dropped using the SyncScan algorithm in the UCSD tests, compared to substantial packet losses using current technology. “That is because the overhead of scanning for nearby base stations when the current signal weakens is routinely over 250 milliseconds, during which incoming packets are dropped,” said Ramani. “We expect that the same improvements can be achieved on most Wi-Fi devices and using most applications, not just voice.”

SyncScan is also economical, because it can be deployed incrementally and implemented in software without requiring any changes to the 802.11 standard or any hardware upgrades.

Just over 110,000 Voice over Wi-Fi handsets were sold in 2004, mostly in Japan. Vonage is set to roll it out commercially in the U.S. later this spring as an add-on to its popular VoIP service, and sales of dual-use phones incorporating both cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity could reach $3 billion by 2009, according to a study by Infonetics Research.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/511105/?sc=swtn


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Download Debate Strikes Back

Panelists from the recording, television and movie industries and lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Napster will join in a unique debate on the controversial issue of digital copyright in a forum titled 'The Download Debate Strikes Back,' at Cornell University April 14, streamed live on the Web.

Cornell University will host a forum on the controversial issue of digital copyright, titled 'The Download Debate Strikes Back,' April 14 at 7:30 p.m. in Call Auditorium of Kennedy Hall, on campus. The public is invited to attend.

The forum will be streamed live at: http://www.cit.cornell.edu/oit/UCPL.html .

Panelists from the recording, television and movie industries, plus lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Napster will examine the complex issues related to the downloading of music and movies from the Web.

"We're watching the development of new relationships between artists and their audience, and our students are learning that the protection of intellectual property begins with the author," said Kent Hubbell, Cornell's dean of students. Hubbell's office, along with Cornell's Student Assembly and the University Computer Policy and Law Program, is sponsoring the forum.

The panelists will discuss the MGM v. Grokster case, which was heard in late March by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, entertainment companies brought suit against the developers of the Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaA software products, which facilitate the sharing of copyrighted materials online.

In order to provide an alternative for its students, Cornell began a one-year experiment in legal downloading of music last fall. A campuswide site license for Napster has provided students with free streaming and downloading access to the company's library of more than 750,000 songs. Next fall, the Cornell Student Assembly will decide if the program should be continued.

Forum panelists will include: • Cary Sherman , president, Recording Industry Association of America; • Fritz Attaway , executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America; • Siva Vaidhyanathan , New York University assistant professor; • Fred von Lohmann , senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation; • Alec French , senior counsel, NBC/Universal; and • Avery Kotler , senior director of business and legal affairs, Napster.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/511056/?sc=swtn


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Piracy: A Deadly Scourge
Jason Roberts

So I hear the RIAA is starting to crack down on pirates in Oklahoma. I have to say it’s about time.

No matter that a landlocked state isn’t the most common area of pirate activity. These mad sailors need to be stopped wherever they set their dark sails.

It is interesting, however, that the RIAA is the one going after these buccaneers. You’d think the Recording Industry Association of America would be spending all their time lining their pockets and leeching on to the musically talented. But the association hates competition, so here we are.

But instead, they are nobly opposing piracy. And it’s a good thing too.

Pirates have long been the scourge of the seas. Like bums with ships and swords, they are a leach on society’s underbelly. And not helpful leeches, as seen in “Speed 2: Cruise Control,” and an episode of “General Hospital” that I heard about on an episode of “Saturday Night Live.” It was the one with George Clooney hosting.

The liberal media has been trying to put a happy face on piracy, with such films as “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Finding Neverland,” but even liberals have had it with these swashbucklers.

Ever wonder how pirates get those parrots to perch on their shoulders? Well, PETA did, and it’s bad. Think veal meets Monty Python, and just try to sleep tonight.

Pirates are also in trouble with PETW — People for the Ethical Treatment of Wood. They think they can just walk around on peg legs like they own them. Get your own leg back from an evil whale, you fascist pig!

As time goes on, pirates are only getting worse and worse. It used to be, when a pirate wanted a little fun at an innocent’s expense, they would just force a random sailor to walk the plank, falling into shark-infested waters. Now, pirates make crappy movies about sharks attacking scantly clad coeds on spring break and force major television networks to run them. Oh, the humanity.

Only with the help of the RIAA and other greedy, evil, soulless organizations like it will we be able to turn the tide against those who salute a black flag that stands for villainy, ruthlessness and TiVoing “Newlyweds.”
http://www.ocolly.com/new_ocollycom/...php?a_id=26090

















Until next week,

- js.














~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Current Week In Review.





Recent WiRs -

April 9th, April 2nd, March 26th, March 19th, March 12th

Jack Spratt's Week In Review is published every Friday. Please submit letters, articles, and press releases in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Include contact info. Submission deadlines are Wednesdays @ 1700 UTC.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black