DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – February 12, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The open-source movement has had a terrific start to the New Year. Within two weeks , the open-source community received gifts from both IBM and Sun Microsystems. And these gifts re-ignited a debate over whether patents on software should even be allowed.

Open-source software is software where the source code, or human readable code, is readily available, such as Linux. Users are generally free to modify the software as they like — but with the caveat they must share their changes with all users.

On Jan. 11, IBM announced it would pledge open access to 500 IBM software patents. This means that anyone working on or using open-source software can use the 500 IBM patents royalty-free.

(more…)

We can gain some comfort from the fact that different attempts are being made to deal with spam.

On the legal front, lawsuits have been launched against spammers, including one just announced by Microsoft and Phizer.

On the self-help front, the “419 Flash Mob” is trying to orchestrate mass denial of service attacks on certain spammers. (A DOS attack floods the servers with so much incoming traffic that they crash.) Perhaps that is no more proper than the spammer’s actions – but the victims would not get much sympathy. Call it poetic justice.

Read a Globe and Mail article about the lawsuit.

Read a CNet article about the 419 Flash Mob

Now that privacy laws apply to all businesses, not just federally regulated ones like banks and airlines, we are starting to see privacy complaint decisions against companies like retailers and collection agencies.

The Alberta Privacy Commissioner has published a news release about 3 such situations. In all 3 cases, they did not do an adequate job of protecting sensitive information from theft or disclosure.

Read the news release

I have commented before that DRM (Digital rights Management) (sometimes referred to as TPM, or Technological Protection Measures) usually comes off as ineffective, and over reaching.

I can understand the desire of those who sell digital material – whether it is music, movies, software – to prevent illegal copying of their material. However it tends to be ineffective against determined pirates, and inconveniences and unduly limits legitimate users.

The restrictions put on various downloaded music and music players is a good example.

ZDNet’s Anchor desk has an article today that does a good job of explaining that as it relates to iTunes and Napster.

Read the AnchorDesk article

It is common in on-line gaming to acquire goods that can be bartered with other players, creating a virtual economy within the game.

A CNet article talks about a game where one can pay actual cash to other players for their virtual property. While actual cash has been paid for game assets before, it is generally outside of the games, and has been discouraged by the game developers.

Read the CNet article

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – February 5, 2005

Read this on Canoe

As consumers, we should have confidence in claims retailers make about their products when they advertise.

We know there are laws to ensure they accurately depict the advertised products and services.

But what about online advertising? The Internet is filled with ads and spam e-mails boasting fabulous products that will help us look 10 years younger or lose 20 pounds in 20 days — guaranteed.

Is anyone looking out for consumer interests online? Do these Internet marketers have to follow the same rules as other retailers?

(more…)

I had the pleasure this morning of introducing on behalf of the London Techalliance organization Dr. Mark Poznansky – President of the Robarts Research Institute. Dr Poznansky gave a fascinating talk about the future of life sciences in London.

One of the issues facing London is that it is not widely perceived as a life sciences city. The reality is that London has many advantages, including world class research centres. Its University and hospitals have been on the cutting edge of many developments, such as organ transplantation. And London is a great place to live.

For more information, see the web sites for Robarts Research Institute and the London Economic Development Corporation.

Robarts Research Institute

LEDC

IBM and Sun’s release of 500 and 1600 patents respectively for certain defined uses has focused the issue of whether software patents should even exist. Some argue that software creators would still innovate at the same rate even without patent protection. The encouragement of innovation, after all, is what patents are all about.

Thus it may be that software patents actually stifle innovation. They certainly strike fear in many businesses creating software, due to the impracticality and cost of ever finding out what patents are out there that might affect their products.

In a Techworld article, Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, speaks out against software patents.

As well, Groklaw reports that the European effort to start granting software patents has been at least temporarily derailed.

Read the Techworld article

Read the Groklaw article

Christie’s is auctioning on February 23 in New York a private collection of material of historic significance for those interested in computing.

Items include works by Turing and Babbage (pioneers in computing design), an original book of code used on UNIVAC, and a book published in 1854 by George Boole (of “Boolean logic” fame).

Read a CNet article

Look at all 255 items on Christie’s web site

In an article in the Toronto Star, Professor Michael Geist discusses the possibility that Canada might enact measures similar to the much maligned Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US. The provisions of that act that make it illegal to circumvent digital rights management measures contained in various products.

I agree with Professor Geist’s position that we should not go down that road, and as he puts it:

In fact, the time has come for all Canadians to speak out and to tell the responsible ministers along with their local MPs what is increasingly self-evident. Canada does not need protection for technological protection measures. In order to maintain our personal privacy, a vibrant security research community, a competitive marketplace, and a fair copyright balance, we need protection from them.

Read the article