Network Neutrality first surfaced as a reaction to what many activists perceived as aggressive moves by telcos to create a “tiered Internet”. Essentially the movement was a defensive one, a safeguarding of the status quo. Now the concept of Net Neutrality seems to be expanding.

Internet for Everyone bills itself as:

a national initiative of public interest, civic and industry groups that are working to see that the Internet continues to drive U.S. economic growth and prosperity.

Backed by Internet luminaries such as Yochai Benkler, Lawrence Lessig, and Johnathan Zittrain, Internet for Everyone is getting prominent play on the Save the Internet, the flagship site of the Net Neutrality movement.

Internet for Everyone’s core principles are oriented around access:

Every home, business and civic institution in America must have access to a high-speed, world-class communications infrastructure.

It is no secret that America’s broadband infrastructure lags behind those of many of our economic competitors. With Save the Internet tying the growth of advanced broadband access to Net Neutrality, how will telcos respond?

If they’re smart, they’ll respond by delivering faster, more robust access, rather than more whitewash about how great America’s broadband market is, and how wonderful the next (coming soon!) generation of broadband will be.

Image Credit

A cropped version of Suspended bridge by Tanakawho is used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

For years the big telecommunications companies have been desperately trying to avoid becoming commoditized. If they are reduced to acting merely as providers of “dumb pipes” the logic goes, down go profits. So rather than provide truly high-speed Internet access of the sort seen in many other countries, the telcos have attempted to squeeze as much revenue out of customers as possible.

Some of their techniques are novel and clever. Targeted advertising makes sense if you’re a telco. Monitor user activity, deliver targeted ads, and watch the revenue fatten your coffers. If you’re Charter Communications, you try this targeted advertising and make it opt-out rather than opt-in.

Another approach is to throttle the traffic used in particular types of Internet activities, notably P2P filesharing. Of course, you could tell customers you were engaged in this sort of traffic shaping. But Comcast decided such disclosure wasn’t a good idea. Perhaps they thought nobody would figure it out. Customers did find out, and using (duh) the Internet, they spread the word. Now Comcast faces three class action lawsuits that allege deceptive and misleading behavior by the broadband colossus.

Given their track record at disclosure, is it any wonder Net Neutrality advocates don’t trust the telcos to self-regulate? There are those who argue that since the telcos own the pipes, they should be allowed to charge what they will and shape traffic however they like. But as any first year Property student knows, the concept of “ownership” is a sticky wicket. Here’s how one commenter responded to the above-linked ownership argument:

Private property is private property. So no more eminent domain powers for telcos to install fiber through private property, right? If a farmer owns 40 acres in the path of a 1000-mile cable, can he now charge what the market will bear?

Hook me up with a cable that was installed without using eminent domain, and I won’t ask for net neutrality on it.

The establishment of the American telecommunications industry has never been a purely private endeavor. If the telcos want to get the government out of their hair, they need to stop acting as if nobody will find out what they’re doing, and they can no longer pretend that America leads the world in broadband choice, speed, and pricing.

Maybe, just maybe, if the telcos started thinking about providing customers faster, cheaper, more reliable service and more transparent business practices, Congress and those customers wouldn’t mind giving them more latitude.

Image Credits

A cropped version of high wire by hojusuram is used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.

According to the Recording Industry Association of America’s David Hughes, DRM (Digital Rights Management) is poised to make a comeback. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Hughes put together a list of “22 different ways to sell music” and figured “20 of them still require DRM.”

Not to be outdone in mapping a route to the future, Fritz Attaway of the Motion Picture Association of America declared, “We need DRM to show our customers the limits of the license they have entered into with us.” Of course! That’s what keeps bringing customers back for more. Show them the limits of your license, and they’ll open their wallets with smiles on their faces.

Read the full story at c|net.

Image credit: Dinosaur Walk by Mykl Roventine. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Judge Alsup construes six terms in this patent infringement lawsuit:

1) initializing oligonucleotide probe
2) ligating an extension oligonucleotide probe to said extendable probe terminus
3) extended oligonucleotide probe
4) identifying
5) just-ligated extension probe
6) repeating steps (b), (c) and (d) until a sequence of nucleotides in the target polynucleotide is determined.

The terms were construed as follows:

1) the oligonucleotide to which the first extension oligonucleotide probe is first ligated
2) forming a covalent bond between an extension oligonucleotide probe and the extendable probe terminus of either an initializing oligonucleotide or an extended oligonucleotide probe while hybridized to a target polynucleotide
3) an initializing oligonucleotide probe effectively extended by one or more nucleotides
4) within each cycle determining the identity of a base in the target polynucleotide
5) the extension oligonucleotide probe or an extended oligonucleotide probe in the present cycle of the method
6) construed as ordinary and plain meaning

BMG Music et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Capitol Records, Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Interscope Records et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Motown Record Company, L.P. et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Priority Records LLC et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Susan Illston
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Zomba Recording, LLC et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Zomba Recording LLC et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Laface Records LLC et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Capitol Records, Inc et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Laface Records LLC et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge James Larson
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Warner Bros. Records Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge James Larson
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Interscope Records et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al -v- John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge James Larson
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Danny Dover, posting at SEOmoz, relates an interesting story about his decision to post video of a Saturday Night Live skit to YouTube, and the resulting reaction from NBC Universal. The story doesn’t unfold the way you might expect.

NBC Universal was quick to react, sending Danny an email to his Gmail account. The contents of the email were surprising:

Your video is still live because NBC Universal has authorized the use of this content on YouTube. As long as NBC Universal has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video’s page. [You also can't embed the video on other websites.]

This is a fascinating and encouraging development. Rather than struggling as they have for years to hold new technology at bay, NBC Universal seems to finally realize that they can instead work with customers, video sharing sites, and advertisers in new and mutually beneficial ways.

As Danny puts it:

It appears that NBC finally understands the power of online marketing. All I wanted to do was share my favorite content with friends, family and about a half billion of my closest internet acquaintances. The studio executives understand this and finally have matured to the point where they are willing to let me and other internet users promote NBC content.

Huzzah!

[The image is a cropped version of Pirates!, by celebdu, made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license at flickr.]

Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Filed: March 24, 2008

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Sechrest et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Filed: March 24, 2008

Rao v. Ross
Assigned to: Hon. William H. Alsup
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 24, 2008

Eppendorf AG v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen
Cause: 35:145 Patent Infringement
Filed: March 25, 2008

Symantec Corporation v. Teshome et al
Assigned to: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg
Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg (Settlement)
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 26, 2008

Sun Microsystems Inc v. Network Appliance Inc.
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Filed: March 26, 2008

Levi Strauss & Co v. Jeans City USA Inc
Assigned to: Hon. William H. Alsup
Cause: 28:1338 Trademark Infringement
Filed: March 26, 2008

Judge Alsup construed “region of variability” to mean “a segment of DNA within a gene or gene product that serves one role (exon, intron, exon-intron junction or exon-exon junction) with respect to one isoform of the gene product and a different role with respect to another isoform of the gene product.”

In this case Judge Alsup granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss whereas Judge Wilken denied a similar motion in a case with similar facts.

Here, Plaintiff Quantum sued Defendant Riverbed for patent infringement. Riverbed contends that Quantum had an insufficient interest in the patent at the time the complaint was filed.

The chain of ownership is as follows. The named inventor on the patent assigned his rights to the patent to Trustus Pty. Trustus Pty. then assigned its rights in the patent to Rocksoft. All the shares of Rocksoft where acquired by ACN 120, a proprietary company of ADIC, thereby making Rocksoft a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACN 120. Quantum acquired ADIC as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Before this litigation, ACN 120 “and its subsidiaries” granted an exclusive license to Quantum for all the patents owned by ACN 120 and its subsidiaries. Rocksoft did not sign this agreement. Not until after the complaint was filed in this case did Rocksoft execute an assignment to Quantum for the patent at issue.

Judge Alsup found that Quantum did not have any rights in the patent when this complaint was filed because no assignment linked Rocksoft to ACN 120. Thus, ACN 120 had not authority to assign the patent to Quantum. “While Rocksoft and ACN 120 were affiliates, each was created as separate corporate entities, and must accordingly be treated as such.”

[T]he mere fact that Rocksoft was ACN 120’s wholly-owned subsidiary does not automatically mean that ACN 120 and Rocksoft had an agency relationship.

Quantum cited Atmel Corp. v. Authentec, Inc., decided by Judge Wilken and covered earlier by me here, in support of allowing a parent company to assert a patent owned by a subsidiary without an express licensing agreement between the corporations.

Judge Alsup had this to say of Atmel:

[Atmel] did not come to grips with the law cited above, perhaps because it was not adequately presented.

I will admit that the facts were murky and quite confusing, as you can see if you read my previous post on the Atmel decision and also read the actual Atmel decision. Further, Judge Alsup supposes, if the assignments in Atmel were in writing, a key fact in this case, was perhaps not in contention in Atmel.

After this case, Atmel becomes questionable precedent.