We recently discussed the idea of much more open, online-based peer review processes. In the ensuing discussion some claimed that such things might work for subject areas like math, where concepts could be reviewed and tested by others, but might not work as well in other areas. However, a recent experiment by the Shakespeare Quarterly to experiment with a more open, online peer review system apparently worked quite nicely:

Mixing traditional and new methods, the journal posted online four essays not yet accepted for publication, and a core group of experts — what Ms. Rowe called “our crowd sourcing” — were invited to post their signed comments on the Web site MediaCommons, a scholarly digital network. Others could add their thoughts as well, after registering with their own names. In the end 41 people made more than 350 comments, many of which elicited responses from the authors. The revised essays were then reviewed by the quarterly’s editors, who made the final decision to include them in the printed journal, due out Sept. 17.

Even one of the authors who was quite skeptical of the program as “entirely won over” by the end, noting that the comments were “more extensive and more insightful” than he was used to receiving on his works.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Microsoft, who has become a strongly pro-software patent company (despite Bill Gates’ old claim that patents would have harmed the software industry in the early days), is finding out (yet again) that such a stance can come back to bite you. We’ve already covered the somewhat ridiculous lawsuit that Microsoft faced from a small Canadian company, i4i, who claimed a patent (5,787,449) on an XML editing feature. Microsoft lost the lawsuit, and the court issued an injunction against Microsoft and claimed that the feature was worth an astounding $98 per copy where the feature was used. Microsoft appealed the case to CAFC who upheld the lower court ruling. Microsoft then appealed to have the entire CAFC rehear the case, and that got rejected. The only move left is to appeal to the Supreme Court that’s exactly what Microsoft has now done.

To be honest, I can’t see the Supreme Court actually taking this case. Unlike some of the other patent cases that the Supremes have taken recently, there doesn’t seem to be any big constitutional questions here. It’s just a silly patent that Microsoft is on the hook for infringing. Perhaps rather than fighting this individual battle, Microsoft will finally realize that it’s stance on patents is only going to do it more harm in the long run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Microsoft, who has become a strongly pro-software patent company (despite Bill Gates’ old claim that patents would have harmed the software industry in the early days), is finding out (yet again) that such a stance can come back to bite you. We’ve already covered the somewhat ridiculous lawsuit that Microsoft faced from a small Canadian company, i4i, who claimed a patent (5,787,449) on an XML editing feature. Microsoft lost the lawsuit, and the court issued an injunction against Microsoft and claimed that the feature was worth an astounding $98 per copy where the feature was used. Microsoft appealed the case to CAFC who upheld the lower court ruling. Microsoft then appealed to have the entire CAFC rehear the case, and that got rejected. The only move left is to appeal to the Supreme Court that’s exactly what Microsoft has now done.

To be honest, I can’t see the Supreme Court actually taking this case. Unlike some of the other patent cases that the Supremes have taken recently, there doesn’t seem to be any big constitutional questions here. It’s just a silly patent that Microsoft is on the hook for infringing. Perhaps rather than fighting this individual battle, Microsoft will finally realize that it’s stance on patents is only going to do it more harm in the long run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

New feature sorts mail into three sections: “important and unread,” “starred,” and “everything else.” The latter isn’t spam. It’s “bologna.”

Continue reading →

Almost exactly a year ago, the tech press went nuts over rumors that Google was negotiating with movie studios to allow movie rentals via YouTube. At the time, we pointed out how odd it was that none of the press coverage seemed to point out that when Google first launched its Google Video offering, it was all based around video rentals with annoying DRM, and it failed miserably. Instead, everyone went to YouTube, and Google eventually had to buy up the site. And, again, when the company ran a trial earlier this year, reports came out about the fact that very, very few people actually paid. Google and video rentals don’t have a very good history.

So again, I’m at a bit of a loss as to why the tech press is pushing a story of rumors that Google is negotiating with the Hollywood studios to do movie rentals via YouTube. It’s nearly the identical story to the one this week last year. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that someone at the Financial Times, who “broke” this story, just misread the year on an email somewhere. Perhaps somewhere along the line Google will figure out a way to do movie rentals that work, but the silly fawning over “video rentals” just because (oh my goodness!) Google is supposedly entering the market seems misplaced (especially when no one seems to want to talk about its previous failures). The Financial Times report says that Google’s new offering “has caused excitement in Hollywood,” but, if anything, that seems like even more evidence that it’s doomed to fail.

Separately, I should note that I’m not linking to the FT version of this article, because FT’s paywall makes it difficult for most people here to read it. A PR person from the FT sent me the article, but I’m not sure what they expect me to do with it. It doesn’t do much good for me to link all of the readers here to an article they can’t read, does it?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Almost exactly a year ago, the tech press went nuts over rumors that Google was negotiating with movie studios to allow movie rentals via YouTube. At the time, we pointed out how odd it was that none of the press coverage seemed to point out that when Google first launched its Google Video offering, it was all based around video rentals with annoying DRM, and it failed miserably. Instead, everyone went to YouTube, and Google eventually had to buy up the site. And, again, when the company ran a trial earlier this year, reports came out about the fact that very, very few people actually paid. Google and video rentals don’t have a very good history.

So again, I’m at a bit of a loss as to why the tech press is pushing a story of rumors that Google is negotiating with the Hollywood studios to do movie rentals via YouTube. It’s nearly the identical story to the one this week last year. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that someone at the Financial Times, who “broke” this story, just misread the year on an email somewhere. Perhaps somewhere along the line Google will figure out a way to do movie rentals that work, but the silly fawning over “video rentals” just because (oh my goodness!) Google is supposedly entering the market seems misplaced (especially when no one seems to want to talk about its previous failures). The Financial Times report says that Google’s new offering “has caused excitement in Hollywood,” but, if anything, that seems like even more evidence that it’s doomed to fail.

Separately, I should note that I’m not linking to the FT version of this article, because FT’s paywall makes it difficult for most people here to read it. A PR person from the FT sent me the article, but I’m not sure what they expect me to do with it. It doesn’t do much good for me to link all of the readers here to an article they can’t read, does it?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

NASA and the Internet Archive have agreed to bring historic photos related to the space organization to Flickr Commons.

Originally posted at The Digital Home

Continue reading →

The Economist is having one of its regular debates, this time on the question of whether or not governments should do more to protect online privacy. Speaking for the motion that government should do more is Marc Rotenberg of EPIC, while arguing that there are better ways to protect your privacy than expecting your government to help you is Jim Harper from the Cato Institute. Right now more people are siding with Rotenberg, but it seems like a classic “oh, somebody has to protect me!” sort of response. Harper’s arguments make a lot more sense to me, with the key point being: do you really trust the government to protect your privacy?

The American government, like others around the world, is a voracious information collector. It facilitates and promotes private-sector tracking and surveillance. It skirts and sometimes violates laws intended to restrain its snooping, and it cannot be held accountable when it does.

This does not seem like the kind of institution one would turn to for privacy protection. “Independent privacy agencies” and government bodies like the tiny, well-meaning American Federal Trade Commission do not tip the balance the other way.

Rotenberg responds that individuals really can’t do much in response, and uses the example of Google Buzz’s privacy screwup as an example. But, the response to that sort of proves Harper’s point rather than Rotenberg’s. Right after Google screwed up with the Buzz launch, in a manner that caused serious privacy concerns, the public and the press responded within hours, calling out Google for what it had done, and forcing Google to backtrack almost immediately and admit that it had screwed up. What more could the government have done? If it was solely up to the government, there would have been a months (years?) long investigation, and finally some sort of wrist-slap and a fine. The public response to Google’s misstep and the concerns that raised among many people about their privacy in using Google seemed to function fine, and should (one hopes) cause Google to think a lot more carefully before making a similar mistake in the future.

Either way, as with all of the Economist’s debates, there’s a lot of interesting discussion going on, not just between the two main participants, but in the discussion section as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

The Economist is having one of its regular debates, this time on the question of whether or not governments should do more to protect online privacy. Speaking for the motion that government should do more is Marc Rotenberg of EPIC, while arguing that there are better ways to protect your privacy than expecting your government to help you is Jim Harper from the Cato Institute. Right now more people are siding with Rotenberg, but it seems like a classic “oh, somebody has to protect me!” sort of response. Harper’s arguments make a lot more sense to me, with the key point being: do you really trust the government to protect your privacy?

The American government, like others around the world, is a voracious information collector. It facilitates and promotes private-sector tracking and surveillance. It skirts and sometimes violates laws intended to restrain its snooping, and it cannot be held accountable when it does.

This does not seem like the kind of institution one would turn to for privacy protection. “Independent privacy agencies” and government bodies like the tiny, well-meaning American Federal Trade Commission do not tip the balance the other way.

Rotenberg responds that individuals really can’t do much in response, and uses the example of Google Buzz’s privacy screwup as an example. But, the response to that sort of proves Harper’s point rather than Rotenberg’s. Right after Google screwed up with the Buzz launch, in a manner that caused serious privacy concerns, the public and the press responded within hours, calling out Google for what it had done, and forcing Google to backtrack almost immediately and admit that it had screwed up. What more could the government have done? If it was solely up to the government, there would have been a months (years?) long investigation, and finally some sort of wrist-slap and a fine. The public response to Google’s misstep and the concerns that raised among many people about their privacy in using Google seemed to function fine, and should (one hopes) cause Google to think a lot more carefully before making a similar mistake in the future.

Either way, as with all of the Economist’s debates, there’s a lot of interesting discussion going on, not just between the two main participants, but in the discussion section as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Last week, in writing about Paul Allen’s decision to sue (nearly) every big tech company south of Seattle (notably absent: Microsoft and Amazon), I had seen a few people suggest that maybe Allen was doing this to prove how ridiculous the patent system is. Larry Downes is now exploring that option in a blog post on his site:

Maybe Allen is not the world’s most famous patent troll. Maybe he’s out to become the world’s most famous patent reformer. Maybe he doesn’t want so much to win as to publicize how dangerous his patents are.

Perhaps in asserting these patents, with their potential to unsettle so much of what is taken as settled business practices in the digital economy, he hopes to force leading tech companies and Congress to acknowledge that the system is broken and fix it. If he wins, or even if he just wears down the other side, perhaps he’ll demand not financial tribute but actual reform of a system that gives patent holders like him the power to disrupt digital life.

I don’t buy it. There are, obviously, lots of ways to go about pushing for patent reform, but dragging a bunch of companies and yourself through the court system seems like one of the least effective ways to go about doing so. Even if it does call attention to ridiculous patents and how they’re used to punish companies who actually innovate, the message is so likely to be lost that I would imagine the chance for any such strategy to succeed is outweighed by the far greater likelihood that the strategy will backfire and actually be seen as a reason to support patents.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →