With the full launch of Facebook’s virtual currency growing closer, the company has spelled out some of the terms that were heretofore only rumored.

Originally posted at The Social

Continue reading →

Some prominent figures in the social-media world are already concerned that Facebook now may have the rights to a concept that should belong to the Web at large.

Originally posted at The Social

Continue reading →

This post is part of the IT Innovation series, sponsored by Sun & Intel. Read more at ITInnovation.com.
Of course, the content of this post consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author.

Last Sunday, Bloom Energy was covered by 60 Minutes for developing a fuel cell technology that can produce cleaner energy more efficiently from a variety of fuels. The Bloom Box promises to deliver reliable electrical power to data centers as well as homes, without transmitting power over long distances, since its “energy servers” can be located where the power is needed. After 8 years of development, Bloom Energy has emerged from its startup stealth-mode with 100kW generators that are already operating at Google and eBay campuses, providing electricity at prices in the $0.08/kWh to $0.10/kWh range (average retail electricity costs about $0.11/kWh). According to the press releases, five “parking spot”-sized Bloom Boxes power about 15% of one of eBay’s campuses, and Google’s Larry Page says that he looks forward to being able to power a whole data center.. someday.

The 60 Minutes piece hinted that Bloom Energy could be a flop like the Segway — since both Segway and Bloom Energy share Kleiner Perkins as a backer. Beyond that, though, the amount of skeptical analysis for Bloom Energy seems a bit lacking. The story of a secret lab creating a solution to the world’s energy problems is a great fiction. But the reality is likely far less inspiring. Plenty of others point out the reliability and cost issues for using a technology that hasn’t yet been around for a decade and takes about 5 years (give or take a couple years) to pay for itself from savings in energy efficiency. A 100kW system costs about $750,000 — so it’s a sizable upfront investment for a company to adopt. Additionally, while the system can run on a variety of fuels, Bloom Boxes are currently using natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel with all the associated drawbacks — even if the power is generated more efficiently.

Ultimately, more competition for generating clean power benefits all energy-intensive businesses. And as some observers note, these Bloom Boxes may help augment other energy technologies — such as wind or solar — for more consistent and reliable alternative energy. But there might need to be a much clearer advantage to installing Bloom Energy’s off-the-grid generators. Certainly, Bloom Energy has done a great job of getting lots of attention for its technology, but it hasn’t proven that fuel cells will revolutionize the economics of energy production. In fact, more efficient use of fossil fuels may actually delay our move away from non-renewable fuels, meaning Bloom would fall short of the hype in more than one way. Instead of a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuel-based energy, it has so far only delivered a somewhat expensive new way to continue using natural gas.

In the end, though, this demonstrates how true innovation is almost always an ongoing process rather than a “flash of genius.” Time and time again we hear about amazing breakthroughs coming out of some secret proprietary lab — but when they’re actually revealed, the reality is just another marginal improvement. It’s what happens next that’s really important. Bloom is getting all sorts of hype for doing something revolutionary, but the result appears just kind of ordinary, at this point. The real question is: can it actually continue the process of innovation to become something that lives up to the hype? It’s that process that’s really important, not the initial concept.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Stephen Conroy, the Australian Communications Minister who is the point man on pushing through Australia’s latest plan to censor the internet, has apparently been caught doing a bit more local censoring. Yeebok points us to the news that Conroy’s own website has a tagcloud, highlighting what people are searching for, but the script that generates the tagcloud automatically blocks the phrase “ISP filtering” from appearing in the cloud. What’s most amazing, of course, is that Conroy’s tech staff is apparently so clueless that they included this in the javascript which anyone could read, rather than, at the very least, hiding it serverside. Amazing. He’s apparently so unable to backup his own position that he has to hide behind a weak technology hack to pretend that people aren’t concerned about his plan to censor the internet. Perhaps instead of “ISP filtering” people should start searching for “censorship” on his site to see what happens…

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

We did our taxes a whopping 6 times when researching the pros and cons of tax prep apps like TurboTax and TaxAct. Here’s what we found.

Originally posted at The Download Blog

Continue reading →

Working too hard when trying to grab a friend’s e-mail address from Facebook? Check out this extension, which turns your friend’s e-mail addresses into links that will open up in your favorite e-mail client.

Originally posted at Web Crawler

Continue reading →

CNET has learned that Twitter has been working on a database of cities and ‘hoods that could be used to geotag tweets rather than a specific latitude and longitude.

Originally posted at The Social

Continue reading →

One of the biggest issues in discussing ACTA is the rampant secrecy behind the negotiations. We’ve heard calls from many different politicians to get rid of the secrecy and be more transparent, but we hadn’t heard who was against the transparency (other than some industry lobbyists who, in theory, shouldn’t have much say in this). The only statement came from the USTR, who claimed that countries would leave the negotiating table if the text were made public — but wouldn’t say who or why.

Well, now we know who. A leaked document highlights which countries are against transparency and the list includes Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, South Korea and Singapore. Many other countries — headed by the UK — have been in support of opening up the process and being more transarent. Among those in favor of transparency are the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And then there’s the US, who simply claims it’s being transparent, but apparently refuses to take a stand on transparency in the negotiations (why should it — when those negotiations themselves are secret). Apparently the real stickler for secrecy is Denmark, which perhaps isn’t that surprising. While there are many Danish people who are fighting the copyfight, Denmark’s “anti-piracy” organization has been among the most aggressive in suing pretty much anyone, and demanding all sorts of sites be shut down or blocked. Unfortunately, it sounds like they’re now the main blockers in keeping the ACTA process secret.



But, of course, for all that attempted secrecy, the documents keep leaking, and they’re definitely problematic. It seems like it’s time for the supporters of transparency to stand up to Denmark and the others and tell them that if they don’t want the process to be transparent, then they should walk away from the agreement. And, in the meantime, it’s time for the USTR to stop pretending it’s being transparent and to actually support real transparency in these negotiations.

Update: And another report points out that “Italy and France fear retaliation” from the US if they vote for transparency…

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Google notified Gmail users Thursday morning that they might be having trouble importing messages from other accounts into Gmail, delaying the delivery of some messages.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Continue reading →

A few years back, we wrote about some lawsuits that were filed against companies who were still listing expired patents on their products, implying that those products were still protected by the patents. The practice of claiming patent coverage over something that isn’t patented is known as “patent marking,” and it’s become very popular lately. AdamR alerted us to the news that Activision was recently sued for patent marking, in listing out patents on certain games that don’t cover what’s in those games. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Joe Mullin points us to the news that, in just the past few months, it looks like a bunch of lawyers have started going around filing patent marking lawsuits. In at least some of these cases, totally different groups of lawyers have sued the exact same companies over the same patents.

What’s going on?

Well, as we noted a few years back, there had been a few such cases filed under the law covering patent marking, and as they made there way through the courts, there was a question of how the penalties should be calculated. The law notes that anyone found to have been patent marking “Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.” But, if you were selling products — say Solo plastic cup lids (which one such case is about) — is that $500 fine for all the lids (considering all the cups with the marking together to be a “single offense”) or does each cup lid constitute a separate offense? Clearly, the difference matters in a big way.

Without going into all the details, an appeals court ruled, at the end of last year, that the $500 should apply to each item, rather than to the product as a whole — massively increasing the liability for false marking. This particular ruling, the Forest Group ruling, applied to construction stilts, and greatly increased the liability — but in some of the other cases, the difference is even more striking. As some have noted, with Solo cups lids, there are supposedly 21 billion (with a b) cup lids with the allegedly falsely marked patent out there, meaning that a ruling like the one in Forest Group, if applied to Solo, turns a $500 liability into a $10 trillion liability.

That’s real money.

And here’s the next part of the law that makes things tricky. Unlike many court cases, anyone is allowed to bring a patent marking case. Yes, anyone. You just have to split the award with the US government. As the law notes:

Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.

So, with the Forest Group ruling last year, suddenly a bunch of lawyers realized that there could be good money in finding anyone with a falsely marked patent — especially if it’s on a consumer product of which there are tons in the market. Hence the sudden rush of patent marking cases, including duplicate suits against the same companies over the same patents.

There are some concerns, obviously, that this is a dangerous situation, with a bunch of lawyers basically scouring the country for anything marked with a patent that might be expired or doesn’t cover the product in question. In fact, I’ve seen some start calling them “patent marking trolls,” playing off of the “patent troll” concept. But, at the same time, as with copyfraud, falsely claiming a gov’t granted monopoly right over something that is not protected is a pretty serious problem — and a law that makes it profitable to punish such an abuse seems like it should be a good thing. Now, if there were only a similar setup for copyrights…

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →