That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows. 

Simon’s post earlier today mentioned the Apple vs Samsung patent lawsuits over tablets and smartphones. The reference to 2001 as prior art is amusing – lets not forget the Star Trek PADD as well. There is actually a Star Trek PADD app for the iPad.

Simon linked to a list of the various lawsuits between Apple and Samsung in various countries. Here is a graphic produced by Reuters that shows patent related suits between mobile manufacturers.

There is market share and a lot of money at stake here. A big reason behind the Google aquisition of Motorola was for its patents. The recent purchase of Nortel patents by a consortium including Apple, Microsoft and RIM for billions of dollars also attests to that.

Many (myself included) believe that smartphones and tablets are causing and will continue to cause revolutionary change in the way we work and go about our lives. Consider the following examples:

United Airlines and Apple announced that the airline will deploy 11,000 iPads for its pilots to replace paper flight manuals with electronic flight bags, or EFBs. This is expected to save 16 million sheets of paper and 326,000 gallons of jet fuel a year.

This CNET video lists the top 5 things that the smartphone replaces. MP3 player, personal planner, digital point and shoot camera, portable GPS, alarm clocks. Also video cameras, newspapers, landlines, books.

This All Things D article talks about how iPads are replacing cash registers.

For the London Free Press – August 22, 2011 - Read this on Canoe

The increasing use of e-signatures raises several questions about their suitability for legal documents

Adobe recently announced the acquisition of EchoSign, a web-based provider of electronic signatures and signature automation. If ink was used to finalize the deal, it had not even dried yet when RPost, a self-proclaimed pioneer of e-signatures, launched a lawsuit against Adobe and EchoSign for patent infringement.

News coverage of the lawsuit described how millions of individuals and businesses worldwide have been using this technology to remotely automate the entire signature process with the click of a button. This is all fine in theory, but, when parties to a contract are relying on it, will an e-signature hold up in court?

According to the Ontario Electronic Commerce Act (ECA), a legal requirement that a document be signed (with a very few exceptions, such as wills, powers of attorney for individuals, documents for land transfer, and negotiable instruments) is satisfied by an electronic signature. The question then is: what is required to meet the definition of a legally binding e-signature?

The act defines “electronic signature” as “electronic information that a person creates or adopts in order to sign a document and that is in, attached to or associated with the document.”

Similarly, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) defines “electronic signature” as “a signature that consists of one or more letters, characters, numbers or other symbols in digital form incorporated in, attached to or associated with an electronic document.”

Although it’s possible to digitize handwriting so that it’s displayed as an image, an electronic signature doesn’t need to look like a handwritten signature or even contain the letters of the signatory’s name, as long as it’s “associated with” the document.

There are two basic legal requirements concerning the reliability of an e-signature that must be satisfied. It must be reliable to identify the person, and to associate the e-signature with the relevant electronic document.

So how do services such as EchoSign do that? Essentially, you load the document to be signed on to the EchoSign service, along with the email address of the person who is to sign it. The person identifies themself by logging in to an existing social media account, and clicks to sign the document. The service returns the document, along with details about the signature, including the date, the email account used by the signatory who created the document, where it was sent, who viewed it, how the signatory’s signature was verified, and to whom and when the signed document was returned.

If, for example, the signatory identified themselves with their Twitter account, it includes their Twitter identity and the image they use for their account.

While we may be used to actual handwritten signatures, one has to ask whether this type of process might be more reliable, and less prone to fraud than the traditional method, particularly where the parties are not together when it’s signed.

Congratulations to my colleague Carol Godby for her work in the settlement of this claim.  The press release is here, and reproduced below.

Flooding of First Nations Land in 1950s Finally Results in Settlement 50 Years Later

Wabaseemoong Independent Nations Signs Historic Agreement With Ontario and Ontario Power Generation

Press Release – August 18, 2011, 2pm

On August 1, 2011, members of the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations voted to ratify a Settlement Agreement that puts to rest historical grievances arising out of the construction of two hydro-electric generation stations in the 1950s that flooded thousands of acres of land, including the community of One Man Lake. The settlement also brings to an end the First Nation’s court action against Ontario and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), but Wabaseemoong will maintain its claims against Canada.

Approximately 40 Wabaseemoong community members were relocated as homes and sacred sites were flooded under 40 feet of water. At that time, the traditional practices of the Wabaseemoong people were damaged and forever altered. Although several previous attempts had been made to resolve the First Nations claim, none comprehensively addressed the full range of grievances until now.

Years of intensive negotiations with the province of Ontario and OPG, led by Chief Eric Fisher and supported by the First Nation’s legal counsel Harrison Pensa LLP of London, Ontario, have resulted in a comprehensive settlement. A financial agreement has been reached and OPG will continue to access and operate its existing facilities. OPG and the First Nation have also established a protocol to govern their ongoing relationship.

Wabaseemoong and Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources signed a separate protocol establishing a process for engagement with the First Nation on resource development within Wabaseemoong’s Stewardship Area. Community members further voted to ratify a Trust Agreement wherein the proceeds of settlement will be put into a trust administered by TD Canada Trust and community members on behalf of the First Nation.

Chief Eric Fisher said: “The healing process will not happen overnight, and the pain caused by the flooding will not easily be erased: the past needs to be recognized and respected.” But the Chief is optimistic: “This settlement represents a fresh start and a chance to rebuild our relationships based on collaboration and mutual respect. Most importantly, the settlement agreement gives hope and opportunities to our present and future generations.”

Carol Godby of Harrison Pensa LLP said the settlement represents the culmination of years of effort to bring closure to a painful past and give hope for the future. “We appreciated the opportunity to act with the First Nation in bringing to life a just resolution to this longstanding dispute while simultaneously honouring the legacy of the Wabaseemoong people,” Ms. Godby said.

Members of the media were invited to attend a celebration to commemorate the official signing of the Settlement Agreement August 18th in the White Dog community. Representatives from all parties were present, including the members of the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations, Ontario Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Chris Bentley, and OPG Chairman Jake Epp.

Wabaseemoong Independent Nations is comprised of three communities (One Man Lake, Swan Lake and White Dog) located approximately an hour northwest of Kenora, Ontario. Harrison Pensa LLP is a full-service law firm in London, Ontario. Its Aboriginal practice is headed by Carol Godby. For further information, please contact:

White Dog:

Chief Eric Fisher
807-927-2000
chieffisher@hotmail.com

Harrison Pensa LLP:

Carol Godby
519-661-6770
cgodby@harrisonpensa.com

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

There has been a lot written lately about the disturbing trend towards becoming a surveillance society. And the equally disturbing trend for governments to try to interfere with various kinds of communications to squash activity. Mathew Ingram has a good article about that on gigaom.

There is a great hue and cry about this when it occurs in countries that we feel suppress their people – but we are also seeing the trend in North America and Britain – such as the recent British riots and San Fransico’s Bart transit system shutdown of cell service.

And yet at the same time, authorities get upset at and try to stop people from photographing them doing their jobs – sometimes to the extent of trying to charge them with crimes such as wiretapping.

Along with that is the photographer as terrorist / criminal attitude that is seen far too often. That has been mentioned on Slaw before here and here. The latest example of that is a post on Techdirt that says police in Long Beach California have a policy that they can detain someone taking photos with “no apparent esthetic value”.

There is of course always some reason given for doing these things – but we can’t just let it be justified by some claim that it is necessary to stop violence or catch criminals. We have to consider many factors, including practical matters such as whether the actions are even effective to accomplish the stated goal, and how disruptive they are to others. We also need to think about issues like security vs privacy, and liberty vs control.

We need to think about these issues on matters such as the proposed lawful access laws.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Apparently some of the British rioters have been communicating using Blackberrys. Which resulted in a suggestion that Blackberry should suspend its instant messaging service until things quiet down.

That kind of reaction never ceases to amaze me.

As if when that was shut down, the riots and destruction would stop because the malfeasants couldn’t communicate any more. And of course consider the effect on the average Blackberry user who is without service as a result. Attempts to shut the entire internet have not stopped people from doing what they are doing, let alone 1 mode of communication. That’s no different than trying to stop the use of any tool used by criminals. In most cases, people, like the internet, are good at working around outages.

For the London Free Press – August 8, 2011 – Read this on Canoe

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently approved a new program for registering generic top-level domain names (gTLDs). The door has opened to allow for almost anything.

The current most commonly recognized TLD is .com, followed by .org.

By 2013, Internet users can expect to see an influx of new internet domain extensions, such as .bank, or ones using major brand names.

The new program will open up the Internet domain market for businesses, organizations and individuals who wish to distinguish themselves or their products in the virtual world by having a personalized domain extension. ICANN anticipates many of the new domain extensions will be registered by cities and other geographic locations, by corporations and by special interest groups.

Those who wish to register a gTLD must submit an application to ICANN and pay a $185,000 application fee. ICANN will begin accepting applications between Jan. 12, 2012 and April 12, 2012. After the application deadline, ICANN will review each application and assess whether the proposed domain extension will be appropriate.

ICANN has introduced a list of conditions and qualifications that must be met by gTLD applicants to ensure they have sufficient financial, technical and operational capabilities to administrate and maintain their gTLD. For example, applicants are first required to undergo background screening of their general business diligence and criminal history to validate the legitimacy of their application and prevent cyber-fraud.

If an applicant passes the background screening, it will be subject to several assessments and evaluations to determine whether their proposed gTLD is feasible. This includes a review to determine whether it will create user confusion or too closely resembles another gTLD. There is a process to determine which applicant will prevail if there are multiple applicants for the same gTLD.

Administrating a gTLD involves a huge commitment and the responsibility to ensure security, ease of access and uninterrupted use. Unlike registering a website domain, such as google.com,a gTLD can accommodate thousands of different websites with the same domain extension.

ICANN’s decision to expand the gTLD registry presents some potential challenges and concerns that must be addressed. For example, gTLDs are border-less but the entities that own the rights to administer a gTLD are confined to the country in which they reside.

A Canadian entity might, for example, acquire the right to administer the domain extension . bank and restrict its use to legitimate banks. However, other countries with different laws about what constitutes a bank may also wish to use the . bank domain extension. Such a situation may give rise to conflicts and liabilities if not adequately prepared for in advance.

The expansion of the gTLD will certainly make the Internet a more interesting place to explore as businesses and individuals seek to distinguish themselves and their products or services online. More information about the ICAN gTLD application process is in its Applicant Guidebook on its website at icann.org.

I’m not a fan of laws that require entities such as ISP’s to retain data about its customers so law enforcement can get to it.  To me, that flies in the face of privacy principles that say one should only retain personal information (both quantity and duration) to the extent it is required to fulfil the purpose of the services being offered.

I’m not convinced that the benefit to law enforcement outweighs the negative aspects of this – which range from costs to the entity retaining, the risk of abuse, and the risk of exposing it.   It is hard enough to protect the information that entities need, let alone information they don’t need.  And the more information you have, the more you are a target for malfeasers trying to get at it.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt has a post worth reading on the subject.  He refers to a researcher and author who says that a current US bill, the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act”  should be called the  ”Forcing Your Internet Provider to Spy On You Just In Case You’re a Criminal Act of 2011″.

Unfortunately, we are heading down the same path here in Canada with the proposed lawful access statute.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

Apple has sued Samsung claiming that Samsung’s tablets violate Apple tablet patents. Some of the features in question are actually part of the Android operating system, not just the tablet itself. In Australia, sales of Samsung’s new Galaxy Tab 10.1 are on hold pending court action. Setting aside the legal issues, and the debate over whether such patents are a good or bad thing for innovation, consider this point of view by Mike Masnick of Techdirt:

But, really, all Apple has done with this lawsuit is to signal to the world (loudly) that hey, we’re really freaking scared that Samsung has built a better product than we have.

Author Peter Nowak has published an article entitled “CRTC is peddling broadband Kool-Aid” that suggests that the state of broadband in Canada is not as rosy as the CRTC paints it. A CRTC report suggests that prices and speeds in Canada compare well against other countries. Peter points out that this was a result of comparing to only 8 countries. And that another report puts Canada in about 33rd place for download speeds, and 65th place for upload speeds. His conclusion:

The bottom line is Canada can’t even try to aspire to an innovation-based economy without first making sure it has proper upload speeds. This hasn’t occurred yet to the CRTC, which is obviously too busy peddling its Kool-Aid vision of a country with wonderful broadband.

For those on Google+, take a look at the comments on a post by Jacob Glick on this article where the consensus is that upload speeds increasing matter in a world where we are using cloud computing, and posting photos and video.

Andrew Schiestel of TBK Creative interviews me about digital law and social media in this video.