| Legal Roundup |
|
Recording Industry Association of America Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has scheduled the retrial of RIAA v. Thomas for March 9, 2009. Davis had declared a mistrial last month after he decided that he had erred in one of his instructions to the jury — where he told them that they could find Thomas guilty of “unauthorized distribution” even if the plaintiff couldn’t prove that anyone actually downloaded the songs. No ruling yet on the RIAA’s appeal of the retrial order. Business Method Patents Reuters reports that the Federal Circuit yesterday affirmed the decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (In Re Bilski), rejecting the claims of a business method patent application dealing with hedging risk in commodities trading. The Federal Circuit cited previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court that have evolved into the test to determine whether a claimed process is patent-eligible under 35 USC 101: (a) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (b) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. The application in question failed in both respects. (At least I hope this is what the decision is saying. I’m still having trouble concentrating after Wednesday night. Have I mentioned that the Phillies are world champs lately?) The Reuters article raises the possibility that this ruling will lead to the invalidation of other Business Method patents (they specifically mentioned Amazon’s One-Click): “Erika Arner, a patent attorney with law firm Finnegan LLP, said that many business method patents would now be vulnerable to legal assault. ‘Some folks will look at the Bilski decision as a new weapon to attack business method patents,’ Arner said.” Google-Yahoo Advertising Deal The Wall Street Journal reports today (sub required) that the “odds are dim” that the Google-Yahoo advertising deal will be approved by the Justice Department. (Shouldn’t that be “odds are slim“?) According the article, “One sticking point has been the department’s discussion of having the companies sign a consent decree stating the terms of the partnership. That would subject their compliance to continuing oversight by a judge.” |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
Comments (0)October 30, 2008
| Big Mac, Free Wifi … Does It Get Any Better Than That? [UPDATED] |
|
AT&T is now offering free wifi for iPhone users at AT&T hotspots in places such as airpoorts, Starbucks, McDonald’s, Barnes & Noble bookstores, and more. Access seems straightforward: once you connect to the network, you’ll have to enter your 10-digit number. AT&T will text you back a link; tap on it and you’ll connect for free for up to 24 hours. Update, 12:40 pm - BlackBerry users get free wifi, too! |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
| Public Service Announcement #3 |
|
If you see a pop-up from a program calling itself either Antivirus XP 2008 or Antivirus XP 2009 warning you that your PC is infected, ignore it. Don’t click on it. And by all means, don’t shell out $50 for the software. It’s “scareware” — a fake program originating from Russia. Give them your credit card info for the software and they’ll steal your identity. Here’s a screen capture, courtesy of the NY Times. And here’s the article itself. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
| Sweetness |
|
I am now so over 1993. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
October 29, 2008
| Google Syntax Squishyness |
|
Yesterday Philipp Lenssen at Google Blogoscoped reported that Google no longer ignores punctuation characters between words. Thus, a search for low cost will retrieve different results than low-cost. However, Google’s help still says that they ignore special characters. This got me thinking about some of the other poorly-documented Google syntax idiosyncrasies I’ve come across:
I’m sure if I racked my brain I could dig up even more examples. Google’s algorithm changes constantly. But if this is news to you, consider attending our hands-on CLE class for more Google tips. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
October 28, 2008
| A Unique Health ID Number for All |
|
A blog on the LA Times website reports on a RAND study (summary, full report) that estimated an $11 billion cost to provide every American with their own unique health ID number with a resultant $77 billion savings in increased efficiency and reduced errors.
The two different ways of connecting an individual with his health record are a unique patient identifier (UPI) system or a multiple personal attributes system – using name, address, birth date, and social security number. The use of a UPI was mandated by Congress way back in 1996 in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) but not much progress has been made in that direction. The Rand study found that the use of multiple personal attributes is more likely than the UPI to lead to errors, repetitive tests, and unnecessary care. Patient privacy is better protected by using the UPI rather than the other identifying system. Plus, a hacker accessing a patient’s UPI would not have access to that patient’s social security number and other personal information. This would help prevent identity theft. The Rand study concludes by recommending that Congress remove the constraints on the Department of Health and Human Services with regard to the UPI because they believe that this system should be in place before the national health information network is fully developed. |
|
|
Submitted by: Alice McCreary, Reference Librarian
|
| The Christian Science Monitor Puts Its Faith In The Web |
|
The Christian Science Monitor will become the first U.S. national newspaper to go Web-only, reports the NY Times today. The changeover will occur in April 2009. From the article: “John Yemma, The Monitor’s editor, said that moving to the Web only will mean it can keep its eight foreign bureaus open while still lowering costs. ‘We have the luxury — the opportunity — of making a leap that most newspapers will have to make in the next five years,’ Mr. Yemma said.” IMHO the online-only solution sure beats the alternative: laying off most of the real journalists and relying on blog filler. That’s why I don’t go to Philly.com anymore. (I do have Sunday delivery of the Inquirer. For now. If they telemarket me one more time, I’m gone.) I rely on The Monitor, NY Times (even though they’re “running on fumes“), and Wall Street Journal (which I’d pay for even if Jenkins didn’t have a sub) for my serious news. Now The Monitor will probably be able to pull this off because they’re subsidized by the Christian Scientist Church, currently to the tune of $12 million a year. But they also feel that a Web-only format supported by online ads can be a “sustainable model” if they can increase their monthly pageviews from 3 million to 30 million in the next 5 years. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
| Maybe You Think Wal-Mart’s Evil … |
|
… But they’re selling the G1 Android phone for $148.88, more than $30 cheaper than the T-Mobile store, so they can’t be *all* bad. Right? |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
| GE Stands for Google Electric, Right? |
|
Here’s an article and a blog post from the NY Times about Google’s research into energy, in particular alternative energy sources. If you’re interested, both are worth reading. One paragraph of the blog post caught my eye: “As to how Google would commercialize its own energy research — and the intellectual property that rises from it, [William E.] Weihl [Googe's green energy czar] said, ‘We could potentially start a company to commercialize the IP technology we develop.’ Or, he said, Google could also take another approach: Offering up the technology under an open source license, so that others could benefit from it –- and so that Google could benefit from cheaper energy.” I’ve already posted on how Google’s already begun patenting alternative energy technology. But open-sourcing it? With their stock price down by around 40%, I can’t imagine that their investors would be thrilled by giving away a potentially lucrative patent portfolio. In any case, it looks like Google’s giving Mr. bgC3 some competition. Again. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
| Google Books Library Project Settlement: $125 Million [UPDATED] |
|
Two weeks ago I blogged about how Google’s lawyers are such busy bees. Well, one case down and a zillion to go: the NY Times reports that Google has settled the class-action suit filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers over the Google Books Library Project for $125 million. (Wall Street Journal has some info, too, if you have a subscription.) I case you’re interested, that’s less than 1% of Google’s cash on hand. That’s like a rounding error, right? Update, 2:30 pm - Google’s response, from the Official Google Blog. |
|
|
Submitted by: Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian
|
RSS