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!

Help my Sister Win!!! Please!!!

So my big sis, Michelle (that's her smiling face to the left) works for Best Buddies of Massachusetts (BBMA). For a better explanation here is a blurb about them from the BBMA website:

"Best Buddies ® is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to enhancing the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for one-to-one friendships and integrated employment.

Founded in 1989 by Anthony Kennedy Shriver, Best Buddies is a vibrant, international organization that has grown from one original chapter to more than 1,400 middle school, high school, and college campuses across the country and internationally. Best Buddies programs engage participants in each of the 50 United States. We have accredited international programs on six continents with additional country programs under active development. Our six formal programs – Best Buddies Middle Schools, High Schools, Colleges, Citizens, e -Buddies® and Jobs – will positively impact more than 350,000 individuals this year. Best Buddies also is systematically implementing our 2010 initiative that will witness the organization's continued significant growth, both domestically and overseas. Best Buddies volunteers annually contribute services to the community that equate to more than $70 million USD.

Even though Best Buddies has advanced tremendously in our short existence, many areas of the country and many regions of the world still lack programs to help people with intellectual disabilities become part of mainstream society. Our goal is to continue expanding nationwide and at the local community level, while more broadly engaging the global community through our programs."
(Pete and Ian hanging out as participants in the BBMA Program)

As with many non-profits, times are tight in the given economy. Virgin America Airlines recognizes this and is running a great program as part of their coming to Logan International Airport in Boston. The are donating $25,000 to one Massachusetts non-profit, but, the catch is that the people decide which one by voting. So please visit http://revolutiontakesflight.com/items/Best_Buddies_Massachusetts1 and vote before the FEBRUARY 15TH DEADLINE!!!

For more info on what BBMA actually does and specifics, drop on by besttbuddies.org. Thanks for supporting the great cause, I appreciate it as does Michelle!

"I'm just a sneaker pro, I love Puma's and Shelltoes"...- Nelly

Which site is top dog?

    

                                          

Nike and Puma are two companies that have been able to create great market share for themselves through their ability to innovate and cater to their customer’s wants and needs. One very successful way they have been able to do this is through mass customization of the Nike ID shoe and the Mongolian BBQ show respectively. Through a variety of colors, styles, and materials, customers can create a one of a kind shoe that they can truly call their own.

 Both websites do a fairly good job at creating an enjoyable customer experience

on their respective websites. When it comes to navigating the sites, the Puma site is much easier to find what you are looking for. For Nike, you must do a little bit of digging first, which can become frustrating to the customer. The whole concept of the Puma customizable site is intriguing and does an excellent job at capturing a site visitor. What is a “Mongolian shoe BBQ”? It is intriguing enough that it tempts a user to click on it and from there they become hooked as they begin to design their shoe. By designing their site as restaurant, Puma was able to create a more unique experience than Nike. The creativity of the “menu” and the catchy background grasp the attention of the user. Nike could have developed a theme to their site, similar to Puma, possibly with a design lab to play off the different technologies of the sneakers.

Nike does a far superior job in offering more options in terms of shoe type to customize, ranging from basic sneakers to cleats. With Puma, the user is limited to three basic shoe models to customize. Puma does offer the ability to change fabrics and materials, something that is only found with a few pairs of Nike’s. Also, one aspect of Nike’s website that greatly enhances the customer’s experience is the feature that allows you to access a gallery of different designs of the shoe you are viewing. The one potential downfall for the Nike site is the vast number of options available which can be overwhelming as there is a seemingly uncountable number of color combinations that a user can create.

As a consumer I liked to be educated about the product I am planning on purchasing and will go to great lengths to research the product as well as user reviews and consumer reports. Nike makes all of the information a consumer might need in their research stage available on the same page as the shoe you are customizing. Puma on the other hand does not. There is no sign of a user review, shoe technology, or overviews. Nike also provides an entertaining tab about the inspiration of the shoe which allows consumers to connect to the product on multiple different levels. Nike is able to better utilize the technology available to give the customer a complete experience at their website.

Puma offers a more technical website in that they only allow you to select a part of the shoe to customize based on the name of that particular part. This is fine if the consumer knows what a heel cap is or a quarter or an FOT logo, but for those of us who do not, it is a hassle. Nike offers the same feature; however, have expanded on it to include a rollover feature so that when the mouse scrolls over the heel cap, a user can click on it to customize it. It is a much more user friendly interface. Before I make the following comment I would like to note for those of you who do not know me as well, I wear a size fifteen shoe, yes that’s right, I said fifteen, so this is a biased comment and one that the average consumer would not have to worry about. Puma does not carry past size fourteen so no matter how amazing the shoe I create is; I cannot buy it unless I plan on putting it on the mantle in a glass case.

The idea of mass customization came from the boom of the industrial age of the internet, but the difference is that companies figure out how to apply the concepts of mass production and its benefits to customization, a process that was often more costly. Mass customization is just one of the many characteristics of the digital age of the internet, which is something both Nike and Puma are capitalizing on. Both shoe companies practice the concept of on-to-one marketing that allows them to create a connection with the customer as opposed to one blanket method of marketing. They are able to do this by allowing users to create accounts and to save their shoes they create to the “locker” or their “user account”.

Nike and Puma are putting the power to create in the hands of the consumer. Essentially, if you can dream it, they can make it. Both sneaker companies have empowered the individual and in a way let them behind the scenes of the operation. Nike has also been able to incorporate user generated content into their site through their designer’s gallery and user review sections. It is evident by the way in which Nike and Puma have been able to tie in their media content, such as commercials and extra videos, into their sites that they are progressing into the age of Web 2.0, the next generation of the internet.

More and more companies are shifting into mass customization regardless of what industry they are in from shoes to computers to cars. With the rapid advancement in technology, companies can continuously enhance the experience they are providing to their customers by allowing the customer to take charge and act as a catalyst for innovation and the creation of new products, just as Nike and Puma have successfully done. By providing a customizable sneaker, Nike and Puma have created the potential to benefit from greater sales. When it comes to clothes and accessories, every part of the world has a different taste and style. With a traditional business model, satisfying customers around the world becomes extremely costly and difficult. By implementing mass customization and allow the customer to become their own shoe designer, Nike and Puma have been able to cut out the middle man, or designer, and allow customers to be one hundred percent satisfied.

The bottom line is this: whether you like the classic old school look of a Nike or Puma Shoe, or if you want a new, modern look, you can achieve either. The bonus, aside from achieving the look you desire, is that it is unique to the user as they were the ones who generated the design. For both Nike and Puma the advantages of mass customization are paying their dividends. Although it may seem more costly to allow users to customize shoes, these costs are offset not only by the premium for which they charge (most Nike shoes being over $100 a pair) but the demand they have created as consumers are willing to pay a premium for the power to create a unique product that they can call their own.

In order for both Puma and Nike to remain competitive in the customizable sneaker market, they must continue to innovate and change as the technology dictates. The best way to go about this is by allowing customers to take control as it will save them time and money and will also grant them the ability to recognize exactly what it is customers want. The more they are able to customize, the better off they will be. Nike has already begun letting users customize t-shirts and back packs as well. Although there are not very many options, it is a start and a trend I believe will continue to grow. Nike is essentially employing each customer as a fashion designer by allowing them to not only buiold shoes, but entire outfits as well.

The First 100 days.....What about the First 10 days?

This weeks featured article comes to us from the NY Times:  Obama's Order is Likely to Tighten Standards

When ranking Presidents by enviornmental sensitivity, former President Bush would most likely rank somewhere in the middle.  He did completely ignore environmental policy yet never held it in high regard either.  Near the end of his last term as President; however, he did pass through much more strigentCorporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  The new standards called for gas mileage to be 35 mpg by 2020.

On a similar topic, the Bush administration denied appeals and waivers by California and 13 other states asking to set their own emissions standards.  Obama, in his first week in office ordered the EPA to review the waiver and reconsider it.  If California is in fact allowed to set their own standards, it will certainly be a landmark win.  In my opinion, it makes enourmous sense to allow states set their own standards while still maintaining compliance with national standards.  Every state is in a unique position as far as emissions and the current state of air quality.  The national level must factor in the overall air quality of the country (and the world for that matter as air moves rather quickly), but if a state determines they need stricter policies to solve a problem, so be it.

Aside from the mandate, this also will effectively pressure automakers into finding cleaner technologies and developing more fuel efficient vehicles because they will need to design cars to the highest standard.  The trickle down effect from a decision like this could be great.  There is the potential for job creation for automakers and the EPA if the topic becomes large enough.  Ultimately it is a great step in the right direction and refreshing to see a President who is putting sustainability in the lime light. (Note: I was not an Obama supporter, nor did I vote for him so I like to think my opinion on this particular topic is bipartisan).  Although the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire, it will be interesting to see what kind of role the Obama Administration plays in the creation/implementation of its succesor.  Only time will tell, and until next time....remember to reduce, reuse, recycle!