You could buy what?!

As President Obama signs off on the $787 BILLION dollar stimulus package, it got me thinking about exactly how much that is. It is an enormous amount of money which the Boston Globe was nice enough to translate into other areas. Lets just say I would be extremely happy if it were rewritten to include item number one on the list: pay off all student debt!

Check out the complete list and see for yourself

http://boston.com/business/gallery/whatcan787bbuy/

Jump on the train!

With each day that passes, new law and precedent arises with which the legal system of our Country has to work with. This is particularly true as technology is continually enhanced as we move further into the world of the internet. Unfortunately, intellectual property (IP) and web based material is not as heavily protected as a traditional business with tangible operations, mainly because it is something our legal system never had to deal with prior to recent history. Although legal protections have come a long way, there is still a great deal of land to cover to affording IP holders the rights they deserve.

Many internet business ventures, both for profit and non-profit, have attempted to maximize their development potential and give users exactly what they want by allowing them to create it through an open-source model. An open source model is one that allows users to actually write the code for the specific program in order to enhance it. By implementing open sourcing into a business model, many challenges are presented; however, there are also many advantages. Anyone can use the coding, nobody owns it, anyone can improve it, it is very complex, but ultimately, it allows for rapid change. This is the concept with which systems such as Wikipedia, Linux, and Mozilla Firefox operate on.

The largest problem and challenge open sourcing poses for a creator is that nobody truly owns it, so who is responsible and can anyone be held liable? It would seem as though users would self-police themselves to avoid malicious content being built into the source and to ensure no one person was abusing the privilege of being allowed access to create and modify programs. Open source also presents the problem of legal protection because no one truly owns the coding so it is extremely difficult to prove copyright infringement or to determine who exactly owns th

e intellectual property rights. It was not until 2008 that the Courts decided whether or not it was possible to infringing on copyrights with open source content, and even still that issue is being debated through the appeals process.

In 2007, Robert Jacobsen brought suit against Matthew Katzer (Kamind Associa

tes, KAM Industries) alleging that Katzer violated the open source license agreement. Jacobsen is the owner of DecoderPro, a company which is a pure play open sourced and provides users with codes to unlock model trains. Katzer created a similar program for commercial purposes; however, he did not include the proper information necessary to comply with the open source license agreement. When this case was first brought to the Courts, Jacobsen was seeking injunctive relief; however, he was denied that remedy. On appeal is when the Court decided that there had been copyright infringement.

In past attempts from different individuals and companies to bring suit for copyright infringement in regards to open source content, courts had found that there was no infringement and often awarded damages based on breach of contract, in most cases being the license agreements. When users of open source programs, or web based programs of any kind, register to use the services being offered, they almost always are prompted to accept a user agreement. Countless people, including myself at times, often just click accept and do not at all read the agreement. Then when a person violates it, they are found to be in breach of contract. The Jacobsen case has the potential to increase the harshness of penalties if a breach is now also considered to be copyright infringement. Only time will tell as the case has been remanded back to the lower courts as Jacobsen is seeking certiorari, or an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The interesting part about this case, regardless of the outcome, is that an open source creator was finally granted access to the legal system under not only breach of contract, but copyright infringement. Although there have been plenty of suits regarding copyright infringement and IP rights in traditional forms of media, there have been none is the world of open source communications. Traditional copyrights vest the owner with four unique rights to their property: reproduction, derivative works, public performance, and distribution as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The operative word that has been so troublesome in open source disputes is “owner” because by definition, open source content has no owner. It is treated as if it is public domain. I think the sticking point that will develop from the Jacobsen case is that the original creator of the open source content will be provided with much greater protection for their original creation of the content. To contradict that, the prevailing argument is that with all the user changes and development of the product or service, it has been materially changed and therefore should not be provided the same protection as traditional media.

By materially changing the product, Katzer violated the Artistic License and user agreement and in turn commercialized the product to reap the financial benefits of the decoding of trains. This of course violates the fair use doctrine through profitable gains for Katzer. The Artistic License is a form of a click wrap license for a pure play business such as the one Jacobsen operates and allows him to dictate exactly what may and may not be done to the original content. When Katzer proceeded to reproduce the content and commercialize it, he did not allow access to the code, therefore making the content no longer open source and violating the license. The artistic license used by Jacobsen read as follows:

The program “allowed the software to be used and modified by the public free of charge provided that the user describe any modifications to the source code and a) make the modified versions freely available; b) use the modified package "only within [the user's own] corporation or organization"; or c) "rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version." The license also required that the user identify the original authors and include the copyright notices.” Law.com

This is becoming a more and more important concept as open source businesses are now seeing real financial gains from their product as companies like Mozilla and Automatic (parent company to Wordpress.com) incorporate. Creative Commons, a non-profit organization dedicating to protecting IP rights through alternative copyrighting methods will be a crucial tool and resource for companies to use to protect their own interests. With the use of their copyrighting techniques, it will be exponentially easier to prove infringement as opposed to simple breach of contract. For example, the attribution feature they offer would have protected Jacobsen by allowing others to copy and work and derivatives so long as credit was given and the content kept open.

The end result from the Jacobsen case, regardless of the legal outcome, is at the very least a heightened sense of awareness about the problem of protecting ope source rights. There are no teeth to current laws and statutes which may ultimately end in companies rethinking their business models if they cannot be afforded the protections that traditional media holds. There is now more of a need than ever to protect these rights and interests, especially because open source and pure play businesses are recognizing significant financial gains that are in jeopardy of being stripped away.

Back to the Future?

This weeks entry is not the typical article or video clip, but rather and interesting slide show posted by the Boston Globe: The 2009 Detroit Autoshow

As recent as two years ago many Americans were calling for bigger and better vehicles with more power, more space, and more bells and whistles. In a matter of just one year there was a shift in philosophy as gas prices crept towards $5 dollars a gallon and Americans were calling for alternative fuels and gas efficiency. Although there has been some relief in gas prices, that trend is still prevalent in the US Auto industry and the industry is finally listening as they take government dollars to stop their economic free fall. The 2009 Detroit Autoshow was evidence of that as everyone from domestic manufacturers from General Motors and Ford to Foreign producers such as Toyota and Honda. There was even a touch of true class and beauty from companies such as Lexus (a great car, but glorified Toyota, their parent company) and the Karma S from Fisker, which could be yours for a mere $90,000.

The technology featured was mostly some form of electric, most notably the much anticipated 2011 release of the Chevy Volt by GM. GM recently announced finalized plans to implement an LG battery to power the car, a shift from their original plan, but one they believe will perform better. This of course involves outsourcing jobs, as JG is not an American company. They have come under some heat for that decision. What appears to be overlooked by many with the anticipation of the electric car from GM, is that they are reinventing the wheel with the Volt. In the late 80's/early 90's GM introduced the EV-1, which was a huge hit and was the blueprint as far as alternative fuel vehicles were concerned. Seemingly on a whim, they pulled all EV-1's from the road and "recycled" them. The Movie, Who Killed the Electric Car, gives a great in depth look at the EV-1.

Interestingly, there was also the introduction fo the new Smart Car which is being produced eerily like the the EV-1. Only 1,000 are being manufactured and they are only being put out on the road on a lease basis so that they may retain control of all the vehicles. Another interesting unvieling was the 2010 Saturn Vue hybrid, mainly because who knows if Saturn will be around in 2010 as GM proposed cutting that line in order to save costs and avoid bankruptcy. Each of these new concept cars are incorporating more and more bells and whistles and providing luxury and usefulness, while working toward developing electric cars. The future is now!

Are you smarter than a .....

This weeks entry is not an article, but an interesting video clip from Fortune.com:  The Smart Grid

As I have posted about before, the world is in a race to find clean, renewable energy.  Coal plants emit too many tons of green house gases each year and nuclear energy is something this nation is torn over.  Is it safe, is it not?  My question is, why not harness the power of the solar system and earth to meet our energy needs?  Solar and wind technology has taken off on a local scale, but is not yet wide spread.

An upstart venture, Greenbox Technology, is seeking a way to encourage homeowners and cities to replace outdated grids and replace them with new smart grids.  These smart grids essentially act to eliminate waste.  The green box is software a user downloads to their computer, which is then linked to their home energy meters, and can be tracked on-line.  The great part about this is that it reduces both energy usage and cost.  Oklahoma Gas and Electric is the first major city to implement this technology.  Their reasons for doing so is that it will cut back on their costs and allow customers to save.  It will also allow users to see the going rate throughout the entire day so they know when rates are highest and lowest so that they may be more cautious as to when they expend the most energy.

With many power plants reaching capacity, this technology has the ability to alleviate the problem.  It allows users to see what their neighbor's usage numbers are and compare them to one another.  If this smart grid were combined with renewable energies, the savings and benefits would be huge.  Stress for customers, companies, and the earth would be greatly relieved.  The drawback of course is that they are extremely expensive to install and in this down economy, you do not see companies willing to absorb upfront costs for future savings as many companies are in a tight cash situation.  It is only a matter of time before the smart grid erupts, hopefully sooner rather than later.  Until next time.....remember to reduce, reuse, recycle!

This weeks article comes to us from the National Law Journal: Nuclear Waste is Piling Up

Last week I discussed the California emissions waiver and the Obama Administrations commitment to the environment and cleaner energy.  This weeks article posses the same them:  Cleaner energy.  One very controversial solution to our Country's current energy problems is the increased production of nuclear power.  Some argue nuclear power is dangerous while others argue it is human error.  Either way one problem exists that must be solved first:  What do we do with the nuclear waste that is generated in the process?

There is a distinct timeline in the regulation and policy of nuclear waste dating back to the 1960's.  The 60's were highlighted by a policy that called for waste to be reprocessed and recycled with the highly radioactive was falling under Government control for disposal deep under the ground.  The late 70's were characterized by storing spent fuel and waste above and below ground.  It was no longer legal to reprocess it.  The 80's were an optimistic time for nuclear energy supporters with he passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for the Dept. of Energy to build a national depository for nuclear waste.  To fund this, utility companies would pay a surcharge tot he government, ultimately about 16 billion dollars.  What is there to show for this today? Nothing.  Utility companies  have been able to recover a marginal amount of this through litigation as the Government has yet to respond.  Aside from the Government letdown, companies have had to sink millions into alternative storage and disposal methods.

America is in a vulnerable state right now as we are reliant on foreign energy imports, mostly of fossil fuels.  We also have a sever problem with green house gas emissions and air quality.  Nuclear power is an alternative that is much much cleaner than coal and wold also allow the US to work towards energy independence.  The only problem is that without the support of the Government, nuclear energy requires too many financial resources.  It is also a lengthy process to gain site approval.  The DOE needs to get their act together and take definitive action, whether it be in favor of nuclear energy or not.  If they are in favor, they must fiercely pursue it.  If not, they need to stop wasting time and money and make it know they do not support it and invest time and money into other alternatives.  The regulation by the DOE is simply a mess and must be figured out.  They need to work in conjunction with the EPA on alternatives and impacts of actions as well, something that they currently do not seem to utilize.

Nuclear energy is something that we must give a more serious look to.  Although ultimately it may not be the answer, it may act as a band-aid until something better comes along or it may lead us to the answer.  Either way it will lead toward energy independence and take great strides toward protecting our environment.  So I urge you to read up on the issue and decide for yourself.  Until next time.....remember to reduce, reuse, recycle!