Protecting IPs From Whom?

It may be summer soon, but there is a chill in the air.  Legislation known as the “Protect IP Act” has been introduced in Washington.  Basically it is the successor to the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act that made its way through congress back in November. 

This is how the bill would work.  The U.S. Department of Justice would receive the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site, and then serve that order on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms–which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web site invisible.

Needless to say, Google is not happy.  The bill would also make Google, which makes most of its profits from its online advertising products, stop serving ads or sponsored links to those sites deemed as infringing. To quote Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt on Wednesday:

"If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems] to do X, and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it.”

…

"If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it. If it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it”

…

"So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS.’ OK, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs.’ That country would be China.”

As my dad used to say, those are fightin’ words.  And in many ways he is correct, because the main thrust of this is not the Pirate Bay and similar sites, as one might suspect, but rather Wikileaks. 

You see, under this law, leaking information such as governmental cables or embarrassing and/or damaging bank information showing rampant fraud and the like is basically distributing copyrighted material, and therefore subject to the takedown.  See how that works? Do not think for a minute that any of that was lost upon the members of congress who see the site as something they would like to see go away, and soon.

Of course the MPAA had words to fire back, seeing that they basically wrote the bill for the esteemed members of congress.  Michael O’Leary, an executive vice president for MPAA, in a statement:

“Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws. And the notion that China would use a bipartisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does.”

That last part may be true.  But if China does it, does that mean that we must follow their example?

Weekend Wrap Up–Bad Moves Edition

It has been a busy week, at least if your job is spinning jaw-dropping stupid stunts.

Bad Move Number One.  I think that people have a right to talk about “conflict of interest” in an honest way when you approve one of the largest mergers in US history, then four months later go to work for the company you approved the merger for.  Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission decided to take a lobbying position at Comcast. But, as we all know, one did not have anything to do with the other. 

Bad Move Number Two.  You know it’s a bad move to plant smears on your corporate opponent when the PR company you hired to do so suddenly says “Wait a minute, this isn’t right”.  But Facebook went ahead and did it anyway.  Really, Zuck?  Do you really feel that people are going to leave Facebook for whatever the flavor of the month Google is pitching to be relevant in the social market? 

Bad Move Number Three.  Rupert Murdoch decided to create his own version of Wikileaks, called “Safehouse”.  Yeah, I know, it took me a while to stop laughing on this one.  Of course, unlike Wikileaks, if the heat gets to be too much (you know like someone asks “who sent you this?”), they will sell you down the river to the authorities.  Really, the man is known for spreading lies concerning just about everyone on the planet and we are supposed to believe that if it is posted in “Safehouse” then it must be true?  They say that two positives don’t make a negative.  Yeah.  Right.

Bad move Number Four.  Something that really has something to do with technology, although it doesn’t look like it on the surface.  The political season is once again upon us and unfortunately, we are going to have to put up with political ads.  So far, we have a tie for what are the worst political ads ever, and we have only just begun, so the only place you’ll see them is either on “Web Soup” or the internet.  Really, Newt Gingrich has no reason to be turning out this cheese.  He has been in the game too long to think that this pile of excrement is actually good for him.  But Dan Adler’s ads are starting off by being, well, different.  And by Different, I mean just WTF?  I mean, Patty Duke, in the Muscle Beach weight lifting area telling constituents “Dan Adler gets sh*t done.” and a second ad that makes as much sense as the first.  I don’t know whether the guy is serious or is trolling the southern half of California. BTW, his campaign manager is Sean Astin, he of LOTR fame and Patty Duke’s son.  So there is no excuse for these either.

Just remember, folks, technology is a tool.  Unfortunately, so are many people. 

The More You Know (And Shooting Star)

While everyone was busy watching the budgetary hi-jinks in Washington this week, Google re-organized itself.  The reorganization is not like most in that Larry Page wants no committees and no managers between him and the people he can hold  accountable for each Google product.  Sound like Steve Jobs?  Oh yeah.  Here’s hoping it works out as reorganizations on this scale usually do not end well, as it requires a change in the culture as well as the org.

There is also a brilliant story from Reuters concerning what happened after Rupert met Myspace. For all those who didn’t read it, it boils down to Facebook.  Zuckerberg and his team were focused on product development and innovation while Myspace had become too concerned with revenue and meeting traffic targets of its Google deal.  A point which will be missed by many out there: focus on your product and the traffic will follow, not the other way around.

Oh, by the way, apparently Rupert’s other product, The Daily apparenly is not doing too well after the splashy launch on the iPad. In the words of Nieman Labs, “The Daily is losing audience over time rather than gaining it.”  How the numbers are arrived at are not necesarily the best, but if true, this would not be good news for the King of news.

And finally, while I like Pandora, knowing that via the Android app they are sending the user’s birth date, gender, Android ID, and GPS information to various advertising companies doesn’t make me very happy.  And apparently, the US Government is looking into this.  Pandora revealed that it had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury to produce documents about its user data collection practices on Android and iOS devices. The company said that it believes the subpoena is part of an industry-wide investigation into popular applications on both platforms.

Well, that is if the government doesn’t shut down.  If so, then App makers can breathe a sigh of relief.  At least for the moment.

Somewhere Over the Google Rainbow

Google has finally announced the winner of its1GB fiber-to-the-home network extravaganza.  The winner is Kansas City, Kansas.

Google announced in February, 2010 that it would build and operate its own fiber test network.  Over 1,000 US town applied.  There were all kinds of ways to get Google’s attention.  Google plans to start building the Kansas City network later this year, offering service to residents in the first quarter of 2012. Pricing is said to be “competitive”.

So how did Kansas City do it?  First, KC had a lot going for it in the competition.  But, if you read the story in the Kansas City Star, it speaks of “staying below the radar and keeping the team very tight”.  It talks of confidentiality agreements.  It meant being secretive and not letting anyone know about it until the very end.  Because Google wanted it that way.

Excuse my progressive side here for a moment, but basically, the government of Kansas City was as transparent about this as a brick wall.  This is one of those deals that could be seen as having been done in a back room without any input from the people.  Oh, wait, that is exactly what happened.  The fact that not even executive assistants were clued in as to what was going on should give people pause.  This is government.  These are officials elected by the people to do the people’s business.  Shouldn’t the people get to know what is going on before the announcement?  The fact that this is a great win for a great city notwithstanding, the point is that if the deal turns out to be a proverbial pig in a poke somewhere down the line, what do you do?  You were not invited to the deal making.

But we all know that Google does no evil and therefore, this should be seen as a golden ticket to the chocolate factory.  But it is not.  It is a deal between a corporation and city and county government.  There were more than enough cities out there willing to be up front and honest about what they were doing.  They didn’t win.

Apparently being open about doing business is being evil these days.

The New Android Sheriff

The Android operating system has been like the old west, in that it has been open to do just about anything.  With that freedom, however, has come fragmentation of the Android system.  Some say that openess is a great thing.  If you are Google, however, it means a serious dilution of the system that you are building a large part of your company on.  So Google is starting to tell companies that the days of the wide open spaces are starting to come to a close.  No more tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google’s purview.  You want the latest from Google?  Then they need to approve what you want to do with it. 

Google says its procedures are about quality control, fixing bugs early, and building toward a “common denominator” experience.  According to the story, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by “non-fragmentation clauses” that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with. Google’s view is that such clauses have always been part of the Android license.  Google has also started delaying the release of Android code to the public. This puts smaller device makers and developers at a disadvantage.

Needless to say, some people are not happy with this.  According to Bloomberg Business Week,

Some of those affected include LG, Toshiba, Samsung, and even Facebook, which has been trying to develop an Android device. There have been enough run-ins to trigger complaints with the Justice Dept., according to a person familiar with the matter.

To be fair, Google owes it to all of its developers to keep from Android becoming a series of balkanized states. This is not the open skies that was promised with the original Android. but times change and given the growth of the platform, something needs to happen.  So the question remains – is Android going to stay the Wild West, or will manufacturers come to accept the fact that there is a Sheriff in town?

Google’s Crop Circles

Real or not?  That seems to be the question concerning Google “Circles”.  On Sunday, Read Write Web’s Marshall Kirkpatrick published a story that Google was readying their own social network, called Circles.  Google would show it to the world at the ACLU party at SXSW, a well known gathering in Austin, Texas.  As this was what people call “a big thing”, bloggers started jumping all over the news, with Tim O’Reilly, the well-known technology pundit, seemingly confirming the existence of Circles by tweeting “I’ve seen google circles, and it looks awesome.”

Only one problem.  Like the proverbial crop circles are likely not made by aliens, Google’s Circles likely does not exist, at least in the format that people thought.  Google rebutted claims by saying: “We’re not launching any products at SXSW.”  Google’s Chris Messina, who had been pegged as one of the leaders of Circles, said in an interview that he “didn’t know what [the story] was talking about.”

O’Reilly ammended his original “seen it” statement.

“It’s not a product, per se, and it’s not a new social network. Just some research-y thinking about how you could better manage social data. Exactly what Chris said. I got fooled by the RWW story into thinking that they’d turned it into something they were going to announce. There’s no story here. Just some labs stuff.”

But you’ve seen that, right?

It makes sense for Google to research social networking and how to use the nuances of contacts and the like.  But usually when something as big as Google launching a social network is in the works, then there have been leaks well ahead of time.  The reason for this is because these days, you need to have developers on your side, so somewhere along the way news would be sort of out there before the big reveal. 

I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen eventually – Marshall has been right more than he has been wrong. but at the moment, the niche seems to be where Google is researching, rather than the whole market. All you aliens out there can breathe a sigh of relief.

It’s Called “Search” For A Reason

I have a question.  I have been trying to research this question for the last two hours with little or no headway, and I blame Google.  And Bing.  And every other search engine out there, because search engines no longer do what they are supposed to do, at least in my mind. I mean, I have a question, I go to Google, Bing, etc…, I type in my parameters and a list of sites come up that should have relevant information to what I am searching for.

Silly me. You see, I thought that sarch was supposed to bring me the answers I need.  It used to, but not anymore.  Now it tells me to go to sites that someone else wants me to go to, whether that site is appropriate for my needs or not. 

You see, I was told by my doctor that I should be taking a magnesium supplement, and that I should buy magnesum bis-glycinate, as it is a version of magnesium that is easily absorbed and does not upset the stomach. 

Easy, you would think.  Go to a vitamin store and pick up a bottle.  Only there is a slight problem.  The place where I usually shop does not carry it.  The manufacturer my store works with was having problems with their magnesium supply.  There are plenty of other types of magnesium supplements on the shelf, but none of them are of the bis-glycinate variety.  OK, I tell myself.  I’ll just head home, and check it out and see what I can find on-line, where I can buy it, and problem solved.  The internet saves the day again.

Two hours later, I have set aside my search and decided to write about this, because it is a better alternative to relieving my frustration than setting my laptop on fire.   

I check Google and type “Magnesium bis-glycinate”.  The first page of sites are for the manufacturer that is having supply problems, and therefore useless.  It also does not help that this company appear to be the only manufacturer of magnesium bis-glycinate.  But, there is a listing for a magnesium glycinate.  So now I have a new question: What is the difference between magnesium bis-glycinate and magnesium glycinate?  Because if there is no difference, there are stores nearby where I can go and buy and not have to worry about shipping or waiting. 

I know what is coming though.  That question is going to send me to the farm.  As in Content Farm.  No matter how you slice it, you know you’re going there.  And because it is a subtle difference between the two key phrases, this is going to be a death march through the worst the internet has to offer.  With advertisements everywhere telling me where I can buy anything but magnesium bis-glycinate. 

Two hours laster, and I now know more about magnesium than I ever cared to know.  I know that muscles depend on it and that it appears to help people with Tourette’s syndrome in relieving the physical tics accompanying the condition.  I now know that epsom salt baths work, because the magnesium is absorbed into the body by the skin, allowing muscles to relax.  That magnesium supplements can cause diarreah.  I know all these things, except the difference, if any, between magnesium glycinate and bis-glycinate.  My own understanding of basic chemistry tells me that the difference is probably that instead of bonding with a single glycine amino acid, the bis-glycinate formula has magnesium bonding to two glycines instead.  But the question remains: Is this difference critical?  Will my doctor look down her nose and over her glasses and say with a sigh, “You realize there is a difference between them, don’t you?”

I know at this juncture that calling my doctor is what I have to do in order to get the answer to what I think is a very simple question.  But the point is that if search engines focused more upon question results than SEO content, life could be easier for users. In their defense, Google has been working on the SEO/content farm problem. 

Sometimes though, a simple answer is really the best result of all.

The More You Know (and Shooting Star)

So what have we learned this week?  So many things.  Protestors in Libya are not using Facebook and Twitter, like their Egyptian neighbors, because both sites were heavily monitored this time.  Instead, they used the Muslim dating site, Mawada.  No doubt under the heading, Revolutionary for Revolutionary.  A good story.  This only goes to show that when presented with a problem, people figure out a solution. 

We now have the latest in robots, one that was inspired by a cheetah and a headless terminator style. The company that makes them is Boston Dynamics, the same folks who gave us the “Big Dog”.  Why Skynet finally become sentient, you now know who to damn with your dying breath. 

Google instituted changes to its search algorithm and there are definite losers, of which Associated Content is one of them.  Or, I should say, “Why is Associated Content considered a Content Farm?” Perhaps if they didn’t cause people to make mocking videos on how to boil water, I could take them seriously. Until then, “How do I wear a shoe that fits?”

After last year’s Antennae-gate Apple’s iPhone, Verizon version, does the same thing.  When you put your finger over the gap, the call drops.  The only difference is that this time no one is upset.  Those that were upset the last time apparently have been re-educated to say that this is a feature.

Speaking of which, Apple fan Dave Frommer admitted that after the initial crush on his iPad, he hardly ever uses it anymore. As Frommer is more in the creation of content camp rather than the consumer of content camp, it is easy to see how that can be, as the iPad is really made to consume more than to than create.  But don’t tell that to the fanbois. 

And finally, Om Malik of the great site GigaOm reported that his Facebook site had been hacked and that he had to go a half a day without being able to use Facebook connect.  It is a report that is both funny and sad.  May I make a suggestion?  Many of my friends have taken what I call an Amish Weekend where they completely ditch all the electronics for two whole days. Generally after the first six hours of pure hell, they finally calm down and find out what life was like circa 1988.  Only without Bon Jovi.  Its something that I would suggest along with going to a place outside a large city so that you ditch the TV and radio as well. 

It helps give you some perspective. 

Farms Are For Raising Food, Not Content

In January, Google promised action against “Content Farms”, sites that were placing high in search, yet having very little in the way of practical knowledge.  Now Google is delivering on its promise. On its site, the search company announced that it has changed its algorithm, impacting about twelve percent of its searches, meaning there have been changes in the top 2-3 results.  Those sites impacted are primarily those sites with shallow or low quality content. 

Now for those who do not know what a content farm is, let’s say you are using Google to find out information about car insurance.  You open a site only to have it tell you that insurance is important to have, that most states require auto insurance and that the better your driving record, the lower your rate will be. And that is all the site really tells you, well, besides having Google ad for every car insurance company out there.

Congratulations.  You just took a trip down to the content farm.  And by clicking that link which may well have been in the top five links on Google’s results, that useless piece of information made someone some money.  In fact, the “new media” out there is all about figuring out which search results pages are the most expensive for search advertisers to put keywords on, hiring a freelance to write about 100 words or so about said topic, placing it on a good domain, then Search optimizing the hell out of it and selling Google ads next to it. Nice work if you can get it.  Apparently, companies like Associated Content and Demand Media are doing just that.

So what does this change mean to Associated Content and Demand Media? It depends on who you talk to.  Demand Media came out earlier and said “We are not a content farm”, in much the same way Nixon said “I am not a crook”.  In fairness, Demand’s site eHow is not all bad content, but it does have some questionable entries.  So the way around being excluded is to make those questionable entries less questionable.  In other words, if you don’t want to be known as a content farm, raise your standards.

But the proof of all of this will be just how improved Google’s new algorithm really is.  Here’s hoping it works.  After all, search is about bringing up relevant answers to my questions. I don’t like searching through the search results to find the real items and not farm-fed content.

Now if only they could get rid of those ridiculous ads about a local mom’s amazing health discovery that doctors don’t want you to know about.  I know, baby steps.

Someone Call the Whaambulance

Yesterday, Google breathlessly announced to the world that Microsoft was copying, nay, stealing  search results and demanded that Microsoft stop immediately!

In the words that genius of the English language, Chad Ochocinco, “Child, please.”  To accomplish this sting operation, Google had their engineers install the Bing toolbar, make some made up words and cause Google’s SERPs to link to random unrelated sites. A few weeks later, around 8% of those sites showed up on Bing for those queries.  AHA!  Caught them red handed!  Um, no.  Do this: install the Google Toolbar and do a search of Bing, and guess what?  Google actually directs your clickstream back for its own analysis. AHA!  And really, that appears to be all Bing is doing, as it offers a similar option to record users’ behaviors and upload it back to Bing to improve its results. (In fact, Bing allows their data collection on the toolbar to be turned off.  You do not have that same option with Google.)

So, is Bing using Google to return results?  Not really.  All Bing is doing is factoring in multiple people visiting a specific page when they search for a specific term. This clickstream data apparently has a low weight in the algorithm for the overall results. Given that the keyword searched for was not a real word, any other signals with higher weight were rendered useless as they would not return a result.  Also, there are 9 results that do not show up on Bing. If Bing were “copying” Google’s results, then they should all show up on Bing.

This isn’t a case of plagiarism, unless someone can prove unequivocally that Microsoft is copying original content without properly attributing or claiming it as their own. Google just serves up loads of other content created by others, which isn’t plagiarism either. It’s all in the algorithms. The most popular news will always come up on top no matter what search engine you use.

But this also points out that yes, indeed it is still possible to game the search engine system.  It’s not easy, but it can still be done.  But stealing?  Sorry, Google, no.

By the way, how’s that totally original Android platform coming along?