"Internet Access is a Fundamental Right"

Not my words, but those of a certain Viviane Reding (NB: MS Word document):

The fourth element I would like to underline is the recognition of the right to Internet access. The new rules recognise explicitly that Internet access is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to access information. The rules therefore provide that any measures taken regarding access to, or use of, services and applications must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information and education as well as due process.

Surprising news that Amendment 138 was put *back* in its original, stronger form, is welcome indeed, although it looks like the technicalities of net neutrality were beyond the MEPs. Still, kudos to the latter for standing up against the "three strikes" legislation: it's a good start, and an excellent sign for the future.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

EPO: FSFE Does It by the Numbers

Yesterday I was praising Red Hat's submission to the EPO in its pondering of the patentability of software. Today, it's the FSFE's turn. They've produced a fairly short but sweet document, which has a sentiment close to my heart:

4.(a) Does the activity of programming a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?

No. The reverse is almost invariably true. Any software program is the result of programming, which is in essence combining a series of algorithms, and algorithms are matematics.

Got it in one.

Forking Nagios: Behold Icinga

One of the unique features of free software is that it can be forked. Indeed, it is one of the most powerful incentives for projects to hew close to their users. If they stray too far, someone might decide that enough is enough, and fork the project to produce something closer to their needs.

Whether that project thrives is a matter of support: if it meets a genuine need in the community, it will pick up users and coders. If it does not, it will wither.

Against that background, the following news is rather exciting...

On Open Enterprise blog.

Malcolm Harbour Doesn't Get Net Neutrality

It seems that one of the main architects of the disgrace that is the Telecoms Package is the UK MEP Malcolm Harbour. Here's an indication that he doesn't know what he is talking about:

According to rumours in cyberpsace the proposed new rules will impose conditional access to internet, providers will be able to limit the number of site you're visiting and Skype could be blocked. Is Internet freedom really at risk?

That's pure fantasy. The Telecoms package has never been about anything to do with restrictions on the internet. I am astonished to see this remarkable text from Black-out Europe. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that says anything about that.

The questioner is wrong to frame this in terms of blocking *sites*: it's about blocking *services*, particularly ones based on new protocols piggy-backing on TCP/IP. The Telecoms Package gives telecoms companies the possibility of blocking anything it doesn't like at this level - killing net neutrality - provided they tell people what they are doing.

So Mr Harbour is absolutely incorrect to say "The Telecoms package has never been about anything to do with restrictions on the internet." He obviously doesn't understand what Blackout Europe is saying, as the latter's own post on the topic points out.

ID Cards Get Idiotically Insecure

Remember how those magic ID cards would provide strong forms of identity, thus protecting us against terrorists, people traffickers et al.? Well, those plans have been watered-down, somewhat:

High street chemists, post offices and photo shops are to be used to record the electronic fingerprints and other biometric data needed for the national identity card scheme, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, is to announce today.

The decision to use high street shops sidesteps the need for the Home Office to set up a network of enrolment centres with mobile units to operate in rural areas.

Well, yes, it will save money, but it will also blast security holes through the entire scheme. Without rigorous oversight, it will be much easier to create fake ID cards - just what all those nasty terrorists, people traffickers and other ne'er-do-wells need. Which goes to show that the government isn't interested in increasing our security, just in gaining even greater control over us - and security go hang.

What Happens if Microsoft Buys Twitter?

Here's a nasty meme that's beginning to swirl around:

Microsoft (MSFT) is about to finally consummate a search deal with Yahoo -- and that's great. But if Redmond really wants to carve into's Google search business over the next 10 years, it needs to offer whatever it takes -- $800 million? $1 billion? more? -- to buy Twitter right now.

Eeek - that could be problematic, and I don't just mean because Twitter is built on open source software. The idea of Microsoft controlling my twittering is too horrible to contemplate, so what could I do?

The obvious answer is move to Identica, which is free software. The only problem with that is that I would probably lose most of the people following me. No huge disaster maybe, but going from 1000 followers to zero is not the most motivating of situations.

Ideally, there would be an easy way for my followers to opt to follow me on Identica - as easy as them clicking on a link in a tweet. Anyone know if that's currently possible, and if not, whether it's even plausible? But even then, there's the question of support for Identica in Twitter clients (to say nothing of the main Twitter site).

So what would *you* do if Microsoft bought Twitter?

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Letting Go is Hard to Do

A few weeks ago, Leo Babauta published a great post entitled "Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway (or, the Privatization of the English Language)" about yet another idiocy of the intellectual monopolists. Now he has another, winningly-entitled: "The Culture of Sharing: Why Releasing Copyright Will Be the Smartest Thing You Do." Here's the core message:

Last year I Uncopyrighted my blog, Zen Habits, and my ebook, Zen To Done, and it was one of the best things I’ve ever done. People have used my articles in blogs, newsletters, magazines, ebooks, books and more. And yes, they’ve made profits off me without me getting any of that money … but at the same time, I’ve benefitted: my ideas have spread, my name and brand have spread, and my readership has grown and grown. Since I Uncopyrighted the blog, it has grown from about 30K subscribers to 113K.

You can Uncopyright your blog, your ebooks, and even your print books. And I can almost guarantee you: it’ll be the best thing you can do as a writer.

His heart is certainly in the right place; the only problem is that "uncopyrighting" is not as easy as it looks. Although Creative Commons has come out with what it calls cc0 - "no copyright" - I believe that in some jurisdictions it's practically impossible to renounce your rights as a creator (I'd be interested in receiving confirmation or refutation of this point.)

What you *can* do even there (presumably) is to adopt a licence that grants considerable rights to users (like the GNU GPL). But it's worth noting that most of these *depend* on copyright law, rather than denying it completely.

Red Hat Makes its Position Patent

Six months ago I noted that the European Patent Office had embarked upon a fairly abstruse process....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Last Chance to Save the European Internet

Believe it or not, this saga isn't over, and things are going badly again. The Open Rights Group has a good detailed summary of what's happening, but the short version is this: all of the hard-won victories on the Telecoms Package may come to nought in a vote tomorrow through some outrageous bullying and trickery by national governments (especially UK and France.)

This means we need to write - or, better, phone - our MEPs, and get them to vote as follows:

Here are crucial amendments you should tell MEPs to vote for:

* Trautmann's report
o Amendment 3=7: guarantee of access and distribution of any content/application/service
o Amendment 1CP=2=5=6=9: original 138

* Harbour's report
o Amendment 101=111=117: no discrimination in traffic management policies
o Amendment 102=112=118: regulatory powers against discriminated traffic management policies
o Amendment 62=94=104=119: original 166
o Amendment 96=106=120 : deleting cooperation between ISP and copyright holder about lawful content

As you can see, this has become hideously complicated thanks to the constant to-ing and fro-ing of votes and amendments. Perhaps it's simplest to ask them to vote for the "Citizen's Rights Amendments", and emphasise why it's important to do so. Basically, if they don't, we'll lost net neutrality in Europe, and also the right to judicial reviews before people are thrown off the net on the say-so of companies.

MEPs by country, complete with their direct telephone numbers, can be found on the excellent Quadrature du Net site, which has bags of background info. In the UK, you can find out who your MEPs are by entering your postcode into the WriteToThem service.

Update: This rather poorly-written piece ("digital copyright thieves"? - Sorry, you don't understand the law) suggests that a deal has been done:

Last month, MEPs voted for a bill that read: “No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities.” But, facing opposition from the Council Of Ministers, they on Tuesday rewrote the passage to read: “Recognising that the internet is essential for education and for the practical exercise of freedom of expression and access to information, any restriction imposed on the exercise of these fundamental rights should be in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

This is particularly nauseating:

“The spirit of the amendment has been respected ... we have avoided the rejection of the amendment.” Trautmann said the compromise writes a “sense of a principle” in to the bill.

No, you just gave in to bullying, love.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Another Reason We Need Open Access

One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.

And then this comes along:

The Scientist has reported that, yes, it's true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist.

Now, open access in itself isn't going to stop this kind of thing, but it seems highly unlikely that anyone would try it, given that the results would be freely available for any Thomas, Richard or Harold to peruse.

One reason why Elseview probably thought they could pull it off was that they knew few people would look at this stuff - which is why it's not in Medline, and why it doesn't have a website. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow and all that.

So, next time high-falutin' publishers look down on open access journals - especially if it's Elsevier - just remind them about the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine episode....

Swine Flu in the Nude

This is what the virus really looks like:

1 atgaaggcaa tactagtagt tctgctatat acatttgcaa ccgcaaatgc agacacatta
61 tgtataggtt atcatgcgaa caattcaaca gacactgtag acacagtact agaaaagaat
121 gtaacagtaa cacactctgt taaccttcta gaagacaagc ataacgggaa actatgcaaa
181 ctaagagggg tagccccatt gcatttgggt aaatgtaaca ttgctggctg gatcctggga
241 aatccagagt gtgaatcact ctccacagca agctcatggt cctacattgt ggaaacatct
301 agttcagaca atggaacgtg ttacccagga gatttcatcg attatgagga gctaagagag
361 caattgagct cagtgtcatc atttgaaagg tttgagatat tccccaagac aagttcatgg
421 cccaatcatg actcgaacaa aggtgtaacg gcagcatgtc ctcatgctgg agcaaaaagc
481 ttctacaaaa atttaatatg gctagttaaa aaaggaaatt catacccaaa gctcagcaaa
541 tcctacatta atgataaagg gaaagaagtc ctcgtgctat ggggcattca ccatccatct
601 actagtgctg accaacaaag tctctatcag aatgcagatg catatgtttt tgtggggtca
661 tcaagataca gcaagaagtt caagccggaa atagcaataa gacccaaagt gagggatcaa
721 gaagggagaa tgaactatta ctggacacta gtagagccgg gagacaaaat aacattcgaa
781 gcaactggaa atctagtggt accgagatat gcattcgcaa tggaaagaaa tgctggatct
841 ggtattatca tttcagatac accagtccac gattgcaata caacttgtca gacacccaag
901 ggtgctataa acaccagcct cccatttcag aatatacatc cgatcacaat tggaaaatgt
961 ccaaaatatg taaaaagcac aaaattgaga ctggccacag gattgaggaa tgtcccgtct
1021 attcaatcta gaggcctatt tggggccatt gccggtttca ttgaaggggg gtggacaggg
1081 atggtagatg gatggtacgg ttatcaccat caaaatgagc aggggtcagg atatgcagcc
1141 gacctgaaga gcacacagaa tgccattgac gaaattacta acaaagtaaa ttctgttatt
1201 gaaaagatga atacacagtt cacagcagta ggtaaagagt tcaaccacct ggaaaaaaga
1261 atagagaatt taaataaaaa agttgatgat ggtttcctgg acatttggac ttacaatgcc
1321 gaactgttgg ttctattgga aaatgaaaga actttggact accacgattc aaatgtgaag
1381 aacttatatg aaaaggtaag aagccagcta aaaaacaatg ccaaggaaat tggaaacggc
1441 tgctttgaat tttaccacaa atgcgataac acgtgcatgg aaagtgtcaa aaatgggact
1501 tatgactacc caaaatactc agaggaagca aaattaaaca gagaagaaat agatggggta
1561 aaactggaat caacaaggat ttaccagatt ttggcgatct attcaactgt cgccagttca
1621 ttggtactgg tagtctccct gggggcaatc agtttctgga tgtgctctaa tgggtctcta
1681 cagtgtagaa tatgtattta a

Amazing what a few As, Cs, Gs and Ts can do.... (Via Common Knowledge.)

Why I Blog and Twitter

A question that often comes up is why people blog and twitter. I've given various answers over the years, but once again Mike Masnick says it best of all:

These discussions are like another graduate degree for me, because I constantly have to think, rethink, defend and truly understand the arguments I'm making. It's hard to overstate how incredibly valuable that's been. The fact that many journalists refuse to engage in that sort of conversation actually shows through in their work: they don't want to bother. They like to position themselves as experts, but many don't really understand what they're talking about. Engaging in the conversation may be a lot of work -- and, at times, it can be frustrating or seemingly pointless. But, the massive amount of value I've received from those discussions -- just like the student in the story above -- is almost impossible to quantify. People talk about the importance of ongoing education. That's exactly what these conversations are for me.

Why Pig Flu is Better than Bird Flu: Open Data

As I wrote two years ago, one of the most worrying aspects of bird flu (remember that?) was that virus sequences were not being shared well, which meant that it was hard for experts to track its development and come up with a vaccine. Well, in one respect, swine flu seems to be an improvement over the avian variety:

In contrast to H5N1 bird flu, all the genetic sequences of this H1N1 are being posted on bulletin boards like GISAID, where scientists can access them and compare preliminary analyses.

The GISAID system was set up in 2006 by scientists who protested that H5N1 sequences were not being made freely available.

Here's what the GISAID site says:

This platform is designed and maintained by scientists for scientists from various disciplines e.g. veterinary and human virology, bioinformatics, epidemiology, immunology and clinical analysis etc. From here on, you will find a series of services, including the EpiFlu Database (developed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics in conjunction with other partners of this initiative) providing secure storage and the analysis of genetic, epidemiological and clinical data.

Researchers like you have come together to empower this publicly accessible platform, free-of-charge to all researchers in the world who agree to the same terms, to foster a better understanding of the influenza virus. Following the correspondence letter in Nature, we have all pledged to share the data, to analyze the findings jointly, and to publish the results collaboratively, on the basis of open sharing of data respecting the rights and interests of all involved parties.

One fascinating aspect of this is that to view the data you must agree to the data-sharing that lies at the heart of the site:

Before you can enter, you are required to register and agree to the Terms of Use of our platform, as GISAID implements a particular data-sharing concept that has facilitated the flow of influenza sequence data to the public.

This creates an information commons, just as free software does.

Maybe there's hope for us yet.

The Shame in Spain

I've written a number of times about Spain's use of free software, notably at the provincial level. There's even a handy - if rather out-dated - map that shows the extent of Penguin love there. Sadly, it looks like Microsoft is making the Spanish government an offer it thinks it can't refuse:

According to a press release from HispaLinux, Spain's national Linux association, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's government is finalizing a plan that would supply all children who attend state schools with personal computers with touch-screens so to "promote awareness within families of the usefulness of information and communication technologies and encourage their use." Specifically, we're talking about Microsoft technologies.

Despite the enormous load this plan would have on the budget of each autonomous region (which would have to foot the bill), and hence, on the taxpayer, not a cent would find it's way back to any Spanish company. The Spanish Ministry of Education has not considered any other vendor apart form Microsoft, there hasn't been a public contest, and the media and other vendors were not informed about the pilot program until it was over. Furthermore, no other alternative has been considered.

If the plan gets the green light, it would have dire consequences for the communities of Andalucía, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, Valencia, and all the other autonomous regions that already have a Linux-based IT infrastructures, which have already been paid for and are in use, in place within their school systems.

This is really scandalous on so many levels.

It's clearly born of ignorance about what is really being offered - lock-in to Microsoft's systems - in the naive belief that touch-screens are somehow the future, probably just because the iPhone has one.

It is born of arrogance that the government knows better, and therefore needn't consult with others that might have a view or - heaven forfend - knowledge on the subject.

And it's born of sheer stupidity, throwing away the huge lead that Spain had in this area, forcing local governments that had saved money by opting for GNU/Linux to waste money on an unnecessary and doubtless insecure solution from Microsoft, and as a result making the country dependent on a foreign supplier when it could have nurtured its own domestic software industry.

Shame on the Spanish government.

The Sad Intellectual Monopolist's Viewpoint

If you want to see how misguided the British publishing industry's attitudes are to copyright and its users, you could do worse than read what the outgoing president of the Publishers Association has to say on the subject....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Spreading Government Openness

For those of us that believe that openness is good for governments (and good for us), the question becomes: how can we encourage government at all levels to become more transparent? Requesting or demanding openness only goes so far, and can ultimately become depressing in the face of refusal. So what else can be done that's satisfying and effective?

How about this?

The mission of Sunshine Review is to create a place where regular people have the opportunity to breathe new life into the political system by demanding a transparent and honest government. Sunshine Review collects and shares information about government transparency, openness and accountability at the state and local level.

One of the ways it does that is by rating websites of local governments:

This page gathers the results of county website evaluations from all 50 states after all 3,140 counties in the country were evaluated by Sunshine Review contributors.

That's an extraordinary achievement, and indicates the scale and ambition of the project. The point being that the more publicity is given to shortfalls in sites - especially compared to their peers - the more likely laggards are to respond positively. Now, if we could only get this going over here....

The Tibetans' Secret Weapon: Openness

I came across this fascinating piece about how the Tibetan exile community not only keeps going in the face of China's unbending occupation of their homeland, but even manages to maintain some optimism. Here's a particularly heartwarming passage:

In the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and elsewhere in China, the views of exiled Tibetans and portraits of the Dalai Lama are political taboos. But in Dharamsala everything from the "other side" is available: TV news and propaganda on several different Tibetan-language Chinese channels, dramas and (again) propaganda programmes dubbed into Tibetan. Their original target audience is ethnic Tibetans living in the TAR and in neighbouring regions of the PRC where many Tibetans live (Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan - or in Tibetan, U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham).

Tibetan government-in-exile officials express confidence that Tibetans in Dharamsala won't be brainwashed by these Chinese TV channels, even that it is good for Tibetan communities to encounter Chinese arguments. Indeed, some young Tibetans in Dharamsala laughingly pointed out to me some absurdities in the propaganda TV programmes. The Tibetan officials, asked how they are going to deal with the Chinese government's heightened international PR offensive, expressed the belief that being open and honest is all they need to do.

While China clamps down on Tibetan culture, and blocks sites dealing with "forbidden" subjects like the Dalai Lama, the Tibetans in exile allow anyone to hear the Chinese side. Why? Because openness makes them stronger, and better able to counter Chinese arguments.

Moreover, the Tibetans have no fear of their people hearing the truth, unlike the fearsome and yet fearful Chinese leadership - a mighty dragon strangely afraid of the sunlight.

P2P is Political

Richard Stallman has always regarded free software as about freedom, and hence inherently political. And so it's no surprise that many aspects of openness butt against highly-sensitive areas - secrecy, privacy, etc. But that transition from programming to politicals seems to be taking place beyond free software, too:

a new poll conducted by Swedish newspaper DN.se predicts that the Pirate Party will get 5.1% of all votes in the upcoming EU elections this June - enough to guarantee a seat in the European Parliament. The poll further shows that the party is the second largest party among younger voters in the age group 18-30.

“This poll confirms our recent phenomenal growth in support, and says there will be pirates in Brussels after this election,” Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge told TorrentFreak. “Scoring like this in a poll will further enhance support for the party. While there’s still much work to be done, we’re on the home stretch and have the goal in plain sight. June 7 is election day. On the morning of June 8, we’ll know.”

Clearly, the Pirate Party has been fortunate with the timing: had the trial taken place far from the European elections, the effect would have been muted. Nonetheless, I think it's significant that anger over the court's decision is spilling over into politics; I predict we'll see much more of this if - as is likely - we witness further unthinking rejections of today's digital culture and its norms.

Whatever Happened to OOXML?

Remember Open Office XML – a name chosen to be as confusingly close to OpenOffice XML as possible – better known as OOXML? Remember how just over a year ago this and many other blogs and news outlets were full of sound and fury, as OOXML slouched its way through the ISO standardisation process, finally staggering across the finishing line at the beginning of April 2008? I certainly do, but it's extraordinary how things can change in a year...

On Open Enterprise blog.

Patent Nonsense in Europe

Here's some interesting news on the European patent front:

Preliminary figures from the European Patent Office (EPO) reveal that the number of applications for new patents is down 7% in the first two months of 2009. This is the first reduction in patent applications in over a decade, sparking fears that Europe's knowledge economy is under threat.

Applications to the EPO have doubled since 1995, leaving the agency with a backlog of between 400,000 and 500,000 applications. More than half of the applications filed last year were not granted.

However, the advent of the financial crisis has brought a sharp downturn in the exponential growth of new intellectual property filings.

An EPO survey of its clients, published this week (April 27), forecasts a levelling-off of new patent applications in 2009 and 2010, but this study was conducted in mid-2008, and is unlikely to have factored in the recession, which has deepened in the meantime.

"Europe's knowledge economy is under threat"? I don't think so. Here's an alternative explanation. Patents have a clear cost, but the benefit they provide is far more vaporous. I suspect that as belts are tightened, people are realising that patents aren't actually worth getting in terms of the cost/benefit they represent.

When times are good, companies might merrily apply for patents on the assumption that they are a good investment, without thinking about it too much; but when considered carefully against a harsh economic background, maybe they don't look such a good idea - hence the drop in applications.

The Retreat from ID Cards Has Begun

This is significant:

Senior cabinet ministers are privately discussing a plan to scrap the Government's £5bn identity cards programme as part of cuts to public spending, The Independent has learnt.

Once such people start talking about it, even the most timorous will soon pluck up the courage to express their views; quickly we'll reach a classic tipping point when the majority hold the view that ID cards make no sense from any point of view.

But there are always some who remain prisoners of their delusions:

Your article of 28 April on ID cards is simply wrong on two fundamental points. The Government is committed to introducing ID cards.

Er, why would that be Jacqui?

ID cards will provide the public with a single, simple and secure way for individuals to prove their identity and safeguard their personal details – protecting the community against crime, illegal immigration, and terrorism.

Oh, I see. Why don't we just look at those, eh?

a single, simple and secure way for individuals to prove their identity

Well, no, it won't do that unless ID cards become compulsory for *every* occasion when I have to prove who I am. Now, that may be coming, but until then I'm still going to need to prove who I am by logging in to online services, or showing my library card. Is she really suggesting that the ID card replace *all* of those? If not, it will simply *add* to all of the other proofs that I need. ID cards only make sense if they satisfy a vital new need to prove who we are - for example, when stopped by the police in the street....

safeguard their personal details

How on earth does a centralised database "safeguard my details"? The ID card certainly doesn't - it's just a bit of plastic with a chip in; and as anyone who's been in computing for more than a couple of months knows, bringing data together in any way makes it less secure, not more. So what on earth is she rabbiting on about?

And as for

protecting the community against crime, illegal immigration, and terrorism

these were all debunked ages ago as the UK government desperately shopped around for some kind of justification for ID cards. It won't stop illegal immigration and it certainly won't stop "terrorism".

It hard sometimes to work out whether Ms Smith actually believes the nonsense she spouts, or just believes we're stupid enough to believe her. Either way, news that her colleagues are rapidly placing clear water between themselves and her deranged ideas on this one is welcome indeed. (Via OurKingdom.)

Towards Transparency for Europe

Regular readers of this blog will have spotted that I've been posting more about transparency recently. Of course, it's a natural extension of openness, and can equally be thought of as open government. Whatever you call it, it's apparently problematic for some people:

In the run-up to the European elections, some websites are trying to monitor MEPs according to their attendance in plenary sessions and committee meetings. But in practice the task is proving extremely difficult. EurActiv France contributed to this report.

Last week, one such website, www.parlorama.eu, was forced to shut down after its initiator was flooded with complaints from MEPs.

Flavien Deltort, a former MEP's assistant from Italy, had attempted to rate parliamentarians according to their attendance in plenary sessions, committee meetings and broader participation in parliamentary life.

But only two days after launching his website last week, Deltort was forced to close it down "due to the overwhelming volume of complaints". Threatened with prosecution by many MEPs, he decided to temporary close the website.

Although some of that prickleness may have been justified, I think it also shows that here in Europe we have a long way to go before we achieve open government. The US is already ahead, with campaigners like Larry Lessig working hard to make things more transparent, as well as splendid organisations like the Sunlight Foundation:

Our goal through our grant-making, blogging, projects, and technical leadership, is to use the power of the Internet to shine a light on the interplay of money, lobbying, influence and government in Washington in ways never before possible.

We need something similar here in Europe, but it looks like it's going to be a struggle to achieve that.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Newly in Newham

Those with good memories may recall that Richard Steel and I had something of a, er, discussion about open source in our respective blogs. This culminated in a suggestion from Richard...

On Open Enterprise blog.

Oi, OIN: What Took So Long?

When the Open Innovation Network announced that TomTom was joining, just after Microsoft accused the latter of infringing patents related to Linux, I was sceptical. After all, the former

was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment. It promotes a positive, fertile ecosystem for Linux, which in turns drives innovation and choice in the global marketplace. This helps ensure the continuation of innovation that has benefited software vendors, customers, emerging markets and investors.

Now, I'm all in favour of ecosystems, but it's hard to see how this kind of organisation would help TomTom much. Well, some details are starting to emerge of how OIN aims to fight back against this kind of thing:

Open Invention Network (OIN), a collaborative enterprise that enables innovation in open source and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem around Linux, today announced that U.S. patents 5579517, 5758352 and 6256642 have been placed for prior art review on the Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent website associated with the Linux Defenders portal. These patents were recently cited in litigation that targeted TomTom NV.

OIN's mission includes encouraging the Linux community to review patents-of-interest that may be of suspect quality or riddled by questions regarding prior art. Accordingly, the patents used in the recent TomTom patent action have been posted by OIN for review and submission of prior art by the Linux community. Submissions may be made by visiting http://www.post-issue.org, clicking on the appropriate patent and selecting "Submit Prior Art".

Right, so it seems that OIN won't be doing anything directly, other than getting the relevant patents posted on the Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent website associated with the Linux Defenders portal.

Isn't this a rather roundabout way of doing things? I can't help feeling that this could have been done rather quicker: after all, if it's just a matter of posting the relevant patents for people to examine and poke holes in, why wasn't it done as soon as Microsoft attacked TomTom? Did we really need to wait for TomTom to join OIN, and for the latter to pass the message down the chain a few weeks later?

Perhaps the community needs to think about how this kind of stuff can be done more expeditiously given that patent attacks against open source are likely to increase, and that prior art is a powerful weapon to deploy against them in jurisdictions foolish enough to allow software patents in the first place.

Foolish Phorm

Earlier this year, I had some problems with a statement from the Open Solution Alliance's Anthony Gold. Here are my comments from the time...

On Open Enterprise blog.