Slashdot Mirror

Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center writes "According to this story in Long Island Business News, Acclaim Entertainment has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of New York bankruptcy court, meaning it will liquidate its assets and shut down. The story states in part, 'Computer game maker Acclaim Entertainment (Nasdaq: AKLM) has filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would result in the liquidation of the company's assets. The company filed papers in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Central Islip that estimated its debts at more than $100 million and its assets at $10 million to $50 million. The filing said it had more than 200 creditors.' Game Over."

mbstone writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld [pdf] the settlement reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department in the antitrust case filed in 1998, beating back a challenge by Massachusetts, the only state that didn't settle. Many critics, of course, believe that Attorney General John Ashcroft took a dive on the case which was originally filed by former Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno."

leviramsey writes "The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) has ruled that e-mail providers are not violating the law by reading users' e-mail without the user's consent. The decision finds that the Wiretap Act does not cover interception of communications where the communications are being stored, not transmitted. Perhaps OSDN should send the defendant, accused in 2001 of reading users emails in order to find out what they were interested in purchasing from Amazon, a T-shirt from ThinkGeek?"

dritan writes "News.com is reporting that a judge has tossed out a privacy lawsuit against Northwest airlines. The plaintiffs claimed that their privacy was violated when Northwest gave their information to the government. From the judge: 'Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information. Thus, plaintiffs' expectation of privacy was low.' Do you always read the privacy policy?" If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either? Here is the Judge's order (PDF).

dcrouch writes "Compression Labs has initiated a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against 31 major companies for infringement of its 4,698,672 patent. The patent, filed in 1986, includes 46 claims for various embodiments of digital signal compression technology and reportedly covers JPEG compression. From the dates on the face of the patent, it appears that it will expire in October 2004. This looming date may have prompted the suit. Compression Labs will certainly have a fight on its hands. A major question will be why the patentee waited so long to stake its claim. The Eastern District of Texas court has established special patent rules that help speed the progression of litigation."

GTRacer writes "The USA Today website just posted a report that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) has upheld the FTC's national Do Not Call registry. In their decision, the Court found the list to be 'a valid commercial speech regulation...without burdening an excessive amount of speech.' The telemarketers had challenged the constitutionality of blocking commercial free speech while allowing charities and select others to continue phone solicitation. Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?" The court's decision is available to read.

scubacuda writes "News.com et al report that The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday found Playboy Enterprises can pursue charges that Excite and Netscape Communications violated its trademark by selling banner advertisements triggered by the terms 'playboy' and 'playmate.' The decision reverses a district court ruling that dismissed the suit without a trial in 2000. Playboy 'clearly holds the marks in question, and defendants used the marks in commerce without (its) permission,' a split three-judge panel wrote in its majority decision." This is a shame, because the first judge to look at this case seems to have pretty much gotten it right: "Although the trademark terms and the English language words are undisputedly identical, which, presumably, leads plaintiff to believe that the use of the English words is akin to use of the trademarks, the holder of a trademark may not remove a word from the English language merely by acquiring trademark rights in it."

TCPALaw writes "Reuters is reporting that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that the FTC can go ahead with administration and enforcement of the national Do-Not-Call list, staying a lower court ruling that blocked the FTC from implementing the list. Now I can sue those pesky telemarketers .. I have already gotten 3 telemarketing calls to the phone number I put on the national list since the list went into effect." Reader jhlund1976 points to the court's decision itself. Note, as strredwolf does, that this only means the FTC can "run the registry while a challenge from telemarketers winds its way through the courts." Strredwolf also points to the all-knowing Google News link.

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "According to this Washington Post article, a federal appeals court in California has overturned a Federal Communications Commission decision that many smaller companies claim has kept them locked out of the high-speed cable Internet business. As Chris Murry of Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) notes, 'Many consumers hate their cable companies' privacy policies and their failure to deal with spam effectively. Giving consumers a choice of Internet service providers would open the door to more competition, and let people choose services with better privacy and less spam.' As noted in News.com coverage of this decision, however, FCC chairman Michael Powell plans to appeal the ruling." Reader rednaxela provides some more insight (and a link to the ruling itself), below.

rednaxela writes "The 9th Circuit today issued a decision overturning the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an 'information service,' stating instead that cable modem service consists of both an 'information service' *and* a 'telecommunications service.' Telecommunications services are classified under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and are subject to all kinds of regulation. Information Services are classified under Title I, and are largely free from regulation. If upheld, this decision will likely require cable modem providers to open their networks to competing ISPs. Further, this is likely to derail, or at least complicate, the FCC's plans to classify DSL service (which is provided primarily over incumbent telco facilities) as a unified 'information service." Bottom line - the 9th Circuit's decision may well have preserved open access for competing ISPs on all forms of wireline networks.' Here is the 9th Circuit's ruling (PDF).

jeremycec writes "Evidently, nothing's been resolved since 2001, when this happened the first time. In these Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction documents from Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., we see how the court stepped in to pull the plug on a system, which, through its abject lack of due care, left someone's important financial information wide open to attackers. According to the former CIO of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 'For all practical purposes, we have no security, we have no infrastructure, ... Our entire network has no firewalls on it. I don't like running a network that can be breached by a high school kid.' So, when the BIA could get no relief through Interior's IT Dept., it went to the courts. Source: Government Computer News "

jeremycec writes "Evidently, nothing's been resolved since 2001, when this happened the first time. In these Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction documents from Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., we see how the court stepped in to pull the plug on a system, which, through its abject lack of due care, left someone's important financial information wide open to attackers. According to the former CIO of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 'For all practical purposes, we have no security, we have no infrastructure, ... Our entire network has no firewalls on it. I don't like running a network that can be breached by a high school kid.' So, when the BIA could get no relief through Interior's IT Dept., it went to the courts. Source: Government Computer News "

jeremycec writes "Evidently, nothing's been resolved since 2001, when this happened the first time. In these Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction documents from Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., we see how the court stepped in to pull the plug on a system, which, through its abject lack of due care, left someone's important financial information wide open to attackers. According to the former CIO of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 'For all practical purposes, we have no security, we have no infrastructure, ... Our entire network has no firewalls on it. I don't like running a network that can be breached by a high school kid.' So, when the BIA could get no relief through Interior's IT Dept., it went to the courts. Source: Government Computer News "

jeremycec writes "Evidently, nothing's been resolved since 2001, when this happened the first time. In these Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction documents from Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., we see how the court stepped in to pull the plug on a system, which, through its abject lack of due care, left someone's important financial information wide open to attackers. According to the former CIO of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 'For all practical purposes, we have no security, we have no infrastructure, ... Our entire network has no firewalls on it. I don't like running a network that can be breached by a high school kid.' So, when the BIA could get no relief through Interior's IT Dept., it went to the courts. Source: Government Computer News "

mark_wilkins writes "This morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court's dismissal of his claims against Network Solutions as a part of Kremen v. Cohen, Et Al.. This is the case in which Gary Kremen, the original owner of sex.com, sued Stephen Cohen and Network Solutions for transferring the sex.com domain to Cohen in response to Cohen's obviously fraudulent letter. While Cohen has fled the country, Network Solutions is still very much here and available to offer up any damages that might be rewarded. The case is going back to the district court for further hearings."

Carpoolio writes "TechTV is the first I've seen to name names in the fight between the RIAA and music downloaders. Using an online court records search service, they've found a number of the subpoenas served by the RIAA to ISPs, which will ultimately end in lawsuits for the people named on this list. Right now, they've published a number of the P2P user names filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC, mainly Kazaa users. Are you on the list?"

mark_wilkins writes "A photographer named Leslie Kelly had sued Arriba Soft Corporation for infringing his copyrights to photos when they made thumbnails of his pictures and stored them in a public image search engine. Today the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that making these thumbnail copies of images for the search engine was 'fair use.' Since the applicability of fair-use defenses to copyright infringement touches on all kinds of common uses of the Internet as well as rulemaking related to the scope of the DMCA, this decision will probably have an effect on the discussion. (Note that this case was decided by a 3-judge panel and thus isn't binding precedent.)" Note that the court also reversed in part the lower court's ruling, specifically saying that the lower court should not have ruled on "whether the display of the larger image is a violation of Kelly's exclusive right to publically display his works."

Ken@WearableTech writes "Checking the Court's Opinion site every day has paid off. Verizon's action on the FCC's number portability ruling was dismissed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The court found that Verizon had waited far too long to bring the challenge and it also sided with the FCC's interpretation of the Law rather than Verizon. Barring any other action we may see number portability this year. Unfortunately, Verizon is already lobbying to have the law changed. But it was also nice to see Cingular was on the FCC's side of the case."

GMontag writes "Full report:2002 WIRETAP REPORT Administrative Office of the United States Courts Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director I especially like this part: 'Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should reflect the number of wiretap applications granted for which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. Encryption was reported to have been encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated in 2002 and in 18 wiretaps terminated in calendar year 2001 or earlier but reported for the first time in 2002; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.'"

GMontag writes "Full report:2002 WIRETAP REPORT Administrative Office of the United States Courts Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director I especially like this part: 'Public Law 106-197 amended 18 U.S.C. 2519(2)(b) to require that reporting should reflect the number of wiretap applications granted for which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to the court orders. Encryption was reported to have been encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated in 2002 and in 18 wiretaps terminated in calendar year 2001 or earlier but reported for the first time in 2002; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted.'"

scubacuda writes "C|net reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has ruled in favor of Alan Porter's website, Voteexchange2000.com, a site enabling Gore and Nader voters to swap their Gore votes in states where Bush was likely to win anyway for the Green party candidate Nader. In response to the court's decision, Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU's Southern California office, said, "We're pleased that the court's ruling permits us to challenge the legality of the secretary of state's partisan attempt to silence political speech on the Internet during the 2000 election." (For a look at some of the legal issues behind "vote swapping," visit Gigalaw)"

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

ewhac writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will deliver her opinions on the Microsoft anti-trust suit tomorrow, after close of markets. Much speculation revolves around whether she will approve or reject the settlement negotiated by the Justice Department. Should she reject it, she can only offer suggestions for improvement; she cannot impose amendments. Watch this site for further developments :-)." Reader acacia points out that the opinions should be posted at this site, if you want a quick bookmark.

djmoore writes "A federal judge has ruled that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to the Web. U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz dismissed with prejudice a suit demanding that Southwest Airlines make its website more accessible to the blind, saying that the suit would create new rights for the disabled without setting appropriate standards. Judge Seitz also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Web is a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment,' one of the twelve categories covered by the ADA, on the grounds that the law only covers physical places." Our original article has more details.

Paersona writes "Ever wonder what Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is doing to pass the time while she waits for the next step in the Microsoft case? Apparently she is now serving as the lead justice of the FISA court that oversees intelligence agencies' requests for domestic wiretapping. Today, the Washington Post reveals that the FISA court has released a rare public report rebuking the FBI and Justice Department for their handling of wiretap requests." The New York Times also has a story about the FISA court. The court's opinion is available.

Tarkie sent in this Bloomberg blurb noting that British Telecom has lost their patent suit against Prodigy over an old patent that BT hoped would cover the use of hyperlinks on the modern WWW. See our original story or check out the court's decision.

At least two LUGs with which I am involved have talked about starting community ISPs, and I'm sure many other computer user groups have had the same thought. This is why we buttonholed Carl Oppedahl of Colorado's Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative and asked him to answer your questions. (This interview and the Ruby Ranch FAQs should almost be required reading for anyone thinking about starting their own community ISP.)

Opposition from the Big Players
by Rude Turnip
Dear Mr. Oppedahl:

Your ISP reminds me much of a credit union, which is essentially a nonprofit, member-owned bank. I recall reading about large, commercial banks lobbying to prevent credit unions from gaining some of the same privileges enjoyed by regular banks.

In this age of utility monopoly abuse, do you have any concerns about any of the large, commercial telecom interests (ie Qwest) lobbying the government to make it difficult, if not impossible to set up or maintain ISPs similar to yours?

Carl:
It's a very big problem. ILECs have lobbied many states for laws that forbid state and local governmental entities from offering telecommunications services (e.g. Internet connectivity). We specifically set up a separate corporation for our DSL coop, rather than having our metropolitan district (a state-chartered entity that operates our water system) try to provide the DSL, so as to dodge the bullet if there was such a law in Colorado.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically requires the FCC to preempt such laws when asked to do so, but the FCC has often failed to carry out its obligations under the Act. See http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/011379P.pdf for only the most recent case where a court ordered the FCC to carry out its duties to make it possible for some Missouri governmental entities to offer telecommunications services.

How transferrable are the lessons?
by TheConfusedOne
It seems that a lot of the problems/issues related specifically to the Colorado Public Utilities Board and their laws.

What items/issues do you feel are universal to any broadband/ISP startup? [Licensing, incorporation, etc.]

Where would one go for the state/county specific issues for each particular ISP?

Carl:
To do anything meaningful in the area of DSL, it is necessary to be able to rent unbundled network elements (UNEs) such as subloops from the ILEC (e.g. Qwest). To do that, you need to enter into an interconnection agreement with the ILEC. On Qwest's web site it says that to enter into an interconnection agreement it is necessary that you become a CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier). To become a CLEC it is necessary to file voluminous papers with the state PUC and to file voluminous papers and reports periodically thereafter. The accounting burdens are profound; for even the smallest CLEC it costs many tens of thousands of dollars annually to satisfy them.

We contacted the Colorado PUC about this, and they said that their view is, as long as we were not providing voice telephone service, we would not need to be a CLEC to enter into an interconnection agreement with Qwest. Qwest fought this but eventually gave in.

Thus, one of the first stops would be your state utility commission. Hopefully they could tell you (as ours told us) that as long as you only pass data and not voice calls, you would not need to be a CLEC to rent UNEs.

Local Bandwidth Hogs?
by Vengie
Since you pay directly for your traffic, and you've said that you pay from 75-450$ per month (quite a stretch!) have you considered local caching of sites like yahoo, slashdot, etc to save on bandwidth?

Carl:
The first thing to know is that our subscribers who are likely to have higher traffic levels are using their connections for VPN and Netmeeting uses. Caching is no help with those uses. Second, I don't think caching works except if one user happens to visit the *exact same* web site within a few hours that a previous user did. If the web site has changed during that time (as it would for many news sites such as the New York Times or news.com) the cache doesn't help much if at all. We have a mere dozen users and I don't know that they very often visit the same sites as each other.

Prospects for open space wireless
by dasmegabyte
When I was in Westcliffe, CO on vacation, I loved the environment so much I considered quitting my job and starting my own business, providing internet access for the acres of sparse plots of land connected only by dirt roads. However, it seemed fairly unfeasible -- since there's no power grid to fuel wireless repeaters and no public roads or conduits to piggyback -- so it was back to the grindstone for me.

How were you able to overcome the conditional sensitivity of high speed data in a rugged area with little or no public utilities? More importantly, how were you able to offset infrastructure costs for such a risky and inherently profitless venture -- did you receive any grants or did you simply float loans?

Carl:
As described on our web site, we obtained our launch money in the form of loans from subscribers. There were no grants.

Our total out-of-pocket launch costs were about $12K. Someone in Colorado duplicating our system could do it much cheaper, maybe $3-4K, since DSLAMs have come down in cost and since they could "opt in" to our agreement with Qwest, thus saving the enormous litigation costs we incurred in our volunteers.

I am unaware of meaningful grant sources for this sort of thing.

As for your first question, we over-engineered our microwave link and it has never been affected by weather or otherwise (e.g. signal absorption due to rain or snow). Our DSL links are well within the distance limitations of the manufacturer with a comfortable margin, and good luck has favored us with good pairs provided by Qwest.

Feds wanna take a look
by Launch
Since the Federal government may now put a 'tap' on internet connectivity without a warrent, ISPs are required to let feds put taps on the ISP's system. As member of a co-op would you be contacted if the feds put a tap on the ISP? Who gets to know when the feds come in?

Carl:
Well, as one commenter pointed out, the feds might well impose the tap upstream of us, in which case we might never learn that it had happened. We use PGP for some of our email so the feds would only be able to do traffic analysis on such emails. (Unless they put a keystroke capture routine in our computers to get the PGP passwords.) And our patent law firm uses HTTPS sessions with many of our clients.

Co-ops for low income communities
by selan
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Ruby Ranch is a fairly well-to-do area that can support the costs of running an ISP. Do you think it is possible for community groups in low income areas to run co-op ISPs? Any advice pro or con?

Carl:
For us what made the Coop possible was not so much money as the availability of volunteers with sufficient technical and legal experience. I would say that any community, low-income or not, that had such volunteers available could make a go of it. Money is not really the barrier to entry.

Barriers to co-ops
by blamanj
Are there legal or regulatory barriers to setting up an ISP co-op that you feel should be addressed by legislation?

Carl:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 went a long way toward making our ISP coop possible. The 1996 Act is what entitled us to rent subloops and made it impossible for Qwest to say "no" to such rental. Unfortunately the ILECs (in our case, Qwest) have developed to an art form the ability to be just barely this side of breaking the law, while making it as painful as they can for anybody to actually use the 1996 Act. I doubt that in our present ILEC-friendly administration, any changes in federal law can be made to happen that would help with these problems.

What's worse, the FCC is trying to eviscerate the 1996 Act. In its most recent rulemaking it would re-interpret the wording of the 1996 Act in a way that screws would-be DSL providers. We filed comments in that FCC proceeding, which you can see at http://www.rric.net/FCC%20DSL%20Comments.pdf. Hopefully all readers here also filed comments in that proceeding.

Disciplining "Customers"
by mr.buddylee
As mentioned in your FAQ, if someone hogs too much bandwidth, you'll charge that user for the bandwidth they use. What do you do in the case of complaints against a user for spam, pornography, or other less than desirable uses? Since it's a co-op and the costs are shared, what about the responsibility? What if the ISP was targeted as a spam host or if one of the people under your ISP was serving illegal MP3s or something more sinister like child pornography? Does the entire Co-op suffer or are you able to target and remove the offending person (and avoid any legal costs that might be brought against the ISP)?

Carl:
I suppose these same issues are presented to any ISP. Let's consider the various remedies one by one.

Money damages. If somebody tried to collect money damages from our Coop they would get nowhere. We have plenty of lawyers around the neighborhood who could make it uneconomic for anybody to try to collect money from our Coop which has a negative net worth.

They could aways try to collect money from some individual user, of course.

Injunctive remedies. Somebody might try to impose an injunction on the Coop, like a court order that we must cut off some customer's access. That would not cost the Coop money as we have lawyers to spare. And if the court order were a proper order from a court of competent jurisdiction we would of course comply with the court order.

Criminal liability. If somebody tried to hold the Coop criminally liable for the actions of a subscriber, they would again get nowhere. As mentioned above, we have plenty of lawyers around the neighborhood who would help a prosecutor understand that they would be wiser to expend their energies elsewhere.

They could aways try to prosecute the individual user, of course.

What advantages to being user owned?
by Monkeyman334
I work for a small ISP that went through all the same issues as you. We had to become a CLEC, install our own DSLAM in a Qwest central office, and are currently going through IMA. So what I'm saying is your internet setup looks totally independent of whether it's an Internet Coop or a for profit company. Is there a technology advantage to making it a coop, or is it purely financial?

Carl:
It's not really relevant to your question, but I should point out that we did not have to become a CLEC because we are carrying only data.

Back to your question. A chief advantage for us arises out of the fact that we needed to put our DSLAM in a barn that was owned by the neighborhood. Being a nonprofit coop was important to the neighborhood in giving us permission to use the barn. I doubt the the neighborhood would have been willing to provide the barn location to a profit-seeking corporation.

We were also asking our would-be members to lend thousands of dollars to the nascent entity. I think their willingness to lend money was in part prompted by the realization that nobody else would be profiting from later revenues.

Finally we were asking our members to promise to pay a rather hefty $60 per month, as well as paying startup fees. Had we been a for-profit I wonder if they would have been willing to pay such money. As a nonprofit we can assure them that once the launch costs are repaid, the monthly service fees will probably drop to a much lower level.

Different approaches?
by pokeyburro
Based on the FAQ, it looks like you considered a lot of different possible options, and really did your homework. Are there any aspects of the project that weren't perhaps as optimal as you'd like, that you would have done differently? (Not counting things not under your control, like having to contend with Qwest.)

Carl:
Well, if we could have known in advance that the PUC and Qwest were so closely tied, and thus that arbitrating before the PUC under the 1996 Act was really almost entirely a waste of time, we might have skipped the arbitration and given up and signed the draft agreement as it stood in negotiations before the arbitration began.

One of the biggest problems in negotiation was that the agreement Qwest tried to cram down our throats required us to have an $11M insurance policy naming Qwest as beneficiary. We asked Qwest if any of the interconnection agreements in force lacked this $11M requirement and they said "no." A chief goal of the arbitration was to see if we could proceed without the insurance requirement at all. We finally got it knocked down to a "mere" $1M insurance policy, still naming Qwest as beneficiary.

Months later, tipped off by a smart ISP in New Mexico (CyberMesa) we learned that Qwest had lied. The Covad/Qwest interconnection agreement has no insurance requirement at all. So under the 1996 Act we could have "opted in" to the Covad agreement and ended up with no requirement for insurance after all. This would have saved us the cost of arbitration and would have saved us the $1000 insurance premium we had to pay under our "arbitrated" agreement for this ridiculous unneeded insurance policy.

There are other things people wonder, like why we didn't simply go wireless instead. That's covered fully in our FAQ.

Slashdot Chaplain writes "At the 2600 site, you can see today's details about why 2600 is withdrawing from taking their suit to the Supreme Court." So let's recap the case: 2600 published the DeCSS utility on their website. The movie studios filed suit, and the EFF agreed to assist 2600 with their case. 2600 lost the case in District Court, receiving a tongue-lashing from Judge Kaplan, which ordered them not to post or even link to DeCSS. 2600 appealed. They lost. They attempted to have their case heard again, by the full Appeals court rather than a three-judge panel, and were rejected. And although they have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court, they are saying today that they will not: so Judge Kaplan's decision stands. The case in California is still ongoing. No doubt this will be discussed at H2K2 next week.

Several people have submitted this news blurb about a victory in the CIPA case. If CIPA doesn't ring a bell, my earlier summary should help, or see this article from last month when the suit was heard in court. The ALA's CIPA page has more information, or read the lengthy decision. This is a rather surprising bit of good news; while the government often has great discretion in deciding how funds are spent (read my summary above for how the law worked), the judges in this case accepted the argument that requiring censoring software automatically lead to censoring things that weren't obscene, or child pornography, or "harmful to minors", and that that wasn't acceptable. I've reproduced the first part of the decision below. The government may choose to (and probably will) appeal to the Supreme Court.

Preliminary Statement

This case challenges an act of Congress that makes the use of filtering software by public libraries a condition of the receipt of federal funding. The Internet, as is well known, is a vast, interactive medium based on a decentralized network of computers around the world. Its most familiar feature is the World Wide Web (the "Web"), a network of computers known as servers that provide content to users. The Internet provides easy access to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information to a worldwide audience; it is used by more than 143 million Americans. Indeed, much of the world's knowledge accumulated over centuries is available to Internet users almost instantly. Approximately 10% of the Americans who use the Internet access it at public libraries. And approximately 95% of all public libraries in the United States provide public access to the Internet.

While the beneficial effect of the Internet in expanding the amount of information available to its users is self-evident, its low entry barriers have also led to a perverse result - facilitation of the widespread dissemination of hardcore pornography within the easy reach not only of adults who have every right to access it (so long as it is not legally obscene or child pornography), but also of children and adolescents to whom it may be quite harmful. The volume of pornography on the Internet is huge, and the record before us demonstrates that public library patrons of all ages, many from ages 11 to 15, have regularly sought to access it in public library settings. There are more than 100,000 pornographic Web sites that can be accessed for free and without providing any registration information, and tens of thousands of Web sites contain child pornography.

Libraries have reacted to this situation by utilizing a number of means designed to insure that patrons avoid illegal (and unwanted) content while also enabling patrons to find the content they desire. Some libraries have trained patrons in how to use the Internet while avoiding illegal content, or have directed their patrons to "preferred" Web sites that librarians have reviewed. Other libraries have utilized such devices as recessing the computer monitors, installing privacy screens, and monitoring implemented by a "tap on the shoulder" of patrons perceived to be offending library policy. Still others, viewing the foregoing approaches as inadequate or uncomfortable (some librarians do not wish to confront patrons), have purchased commercially available software that blocks certain categories of material deemed by the library board as unsuitable for use in their facilities. Indeed, 7% of American public libraries use blocking software for adults. Although such programs are somewhat effective in blocking large quantities of pornography, they are blunt instruments that not only "underblock," i.e., fail to block access to substantial amounts of content that the library boards wish to exclude, but also, central to this litigation, "overblock," i.e., block access to large quantities of material that library boards do not wish to exclude and that is constitutionally protected.

Most of the libraries that use filtering software seek to block sexually explicit speech. While most libraries include in their physical collection copies of volumes such as The Joy of Sex and The Joy of Gay Sex, which contain quite explicit photographs and descriptions, filtering software blocks large quantities of other, comparable information about health and sexuality that adults and teenagers seek on the Web. One teenager testified that the Internet access in a public library was the only venue in which she could obtain information important to her about her own sexuality. Another library patron witness described using the Internet to research breast cancer and reconstructive surgery for his mother who had breast surgery. Even though some filtering programs contain exceptions for health and education, the exceptions do not solve the problem of overblocking constitutionally protected material. Moreover, as we explain below, the filtering software on which the parties presented evidence in this case overblocks not only information relating to health and sexuality that might be mistaken for pornography or erotica, but also vast numbers of Web pages and sites that could not even arguably be construed as harmful or inappropriate for adults or minors.

The Congress, sharing the concerns of many library boards, enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA"), Pub. L. No. 106-554, which makes the use of filters by a public library a condition of its receipt of two kinds of subsidies that are important (or even critical) to the budgets of many public libraries - grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq. ("LSTA"), and so-called "E-rate discounts" for Internet access and support under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 254. LSTA grant funds are awarded, inter alia, in order to: (1) assist libraries in accessing information through electronic networks, and (2) provide targeted library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to underserved and rural communities, including children from families with incomes below the poverty line. E-rate discounts serve the similar purpose of extending Internet access to schools and libraries in low-income communities. CIPA requires that libraries, in order to receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts, certify that they are using a "technology protection measure" that prevents patrons from accessing "visual depictions" that are "obscene," "child pornography," or in the case of minors, "harmful to minors." 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1)(A) (LSTA); 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) & (C) (E-rate).

The plaintiffs, a group of libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers, brought this suit against the United States and others alleging that CIPA is facially unconstitutional because: (1) it induces public libraries to violate their patrons' First Amendment rights contrary to the requirements of South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. In arguing that CIPA will induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs contend that given the limits of the filtering technology, CIPA's conditions effectively require libraries to impose content-based restrictions on their patrons' access to constitutionally protected speech. According to the plaintiffs, these content-based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under public forum doctrine, see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 837 (1995), and are therefore permissible only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternatives would further that interest, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997).(1) The government responds that CIPA will not induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, since it is possible for at least some public libraries to constitutionally comply with CIPA's conditions. Even if some libraries' use of filters might violate the First Amendment, the government submits that CIPA can be facially invalidated only if it is impossible for any public library to comply with its conditions without violating the First Amendment.

Pursuant to CIPA, a three-judge Court was convened to try the issues. Pub. L. No. 106-554. Following an intensive period of discovery on an expedited schedule to allow public libraries to know whether they need to certify compliance with CIPA by July 1, 2002, to receive subsidies for the upcoming year, the Court conducted an eight-day trial at which we heard 20 witnesses, and received numerous depositions, stipulations and documents. The principal focus of the trial was on the capacity of currently available filtering software. The plaintiffs adduced substantial evidence not only that filtering programs bar access to a substantial amount of speech on the Internet that is clearly constitutionally protected for adults and minors, but also that these programs are intrinsically unable to block only illegal Internet content while simultaneously allowing access to all protected speech.

As our extensive findings of fact reflect, the plaintiffs demonstrated that thousands of Web pages containing protected speech are wrongly blocked by the four leading filtering programs, and these pages represent only a fraction of Web pages wrongly blocked by the programs. The plaintiffs' evidence explained that the problems faced by the manufacturers and vendors of filtering software are legion. The Web is extremely dynamic, with an estimated 1.5 million new pages added every day and the contents of existing Web pages changing very rapidly. The category lists maintained by the blocking programs are considered to be proprietary information, and hence are unavailable to customers or the general public for review, so that public libraries that select categories when implementing filtering software do not really know what they are blocking.

There are many reasons why filtering software suffers from extensive over- and underblocking, which we will explain below in great detail. They center on the limitations on filtering companies' ability to: (1) accurately collect Web pages that potentially fall into a blocked category (e.g., pornography); (2) review and categorize Web pages that they have collected; and (3) engage in regular re-review of Web pages that they have previously reviewed. These failures spring from constraints on the technology of automated classification systems, and the limitations inherent in human review, including error, misjudgment, and scarce resources, which we describe in detail infra at 58-74. One failure of critical importance is that the automated systems that filtering companies use to collect Web pages for classification are able to search only text, not images. This is crippling to filtering companies' ability to collect pages containing "visual depictions" that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, as CIPA requires. As will appear, we find that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of growth, rate of change, and architecture, and given the state of the art of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither underblocks nor overblocks a substantial amount of speech.

The government, while acknowledging that the filtering software is imperfect, maintains that it is nonetheless quite effective, and that it successfully blocks the vast majority of the Web pages that meet filtering companies' category definitions (e.g., pornography). The government contends that no more is required. In its view, so long as the filtering software selected by the libraries screens out the bulk of the Web pages proscribed by CIPA, the libraries have made a reasonable choice which suffices, under the applicable legal principles, to pass constitutional muster in the context of a facial challenge. Central to the government's position is the analogy it advances between Internet filtering and the initial decision of a library to determine which materials to purchase for its print collection. Public libraries have finite budgets and must make choices as to whether to purchase, for example, books on gardening or books on golf. Such content-based decisions, even the plaintiffs concede, are subject to rational basis review and not a stricter form of First Amendment scrutiny. In the government's view, the fact that the Internet reverses the acquisition process and requires the libraries to, in effect, purchase the entire Internet, some of which (e.g., hardcore pornography) it does not want, should not mean that it is chargeable with censorship when it filters out offending material.

The legal context in which this extensive factual record is set is complex, implicating a number of constitutional doctrines, including the constitutional limitations on Congress's spending clause power, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and subsidiary to these issues, the First Amendment doctrines of prior restraint, vagueness, and overbreadth. There are a number of potential entry points into the analysis, but the most logical is the spending clause jurisprudence in which the seminal case is South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Dole outlines four categories of constraints on Congress's exercise of its power under the Spending Clause, but the only Dole condition disputed here is the fourth and last, i.e., whether CIPA requires libraries that receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts to violate the constitutional rights of their patrons. As will appear, the question is not a simple one, and turns on the level of scrutiny applicable to a public library's content-based restrictions on patrons' Internet access. Whether such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, as plaintiffs contend, or only rational basis review, as the government contends, depends on public forum doctrine.

The government argues that, in providing Internet access, public libraries do not create a public forum, since public libraries may reserve the right to exclude certain speakers from availing themselves of the forum. Accordingly, the government contends that public libraries' restrictions on patrons' Internet access are subject only to rational basis review.

Plaintiffs respond that the government's ability to restrict speech on its own property, as in the case of restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, is not unlimited, and that the more widely the state facilitates the dissemination of private speech in a given forum, the more vulnerable the state's decision is to restrict access to speech in that forum. We agree with the plaintiffs that public libraries' content-based restrictions on their patrons' Internet access are subject to strict scrutiny. In providing even filtered Internet access, public libraries create a public forum open to any speaker around the world to communicate with library patrons via the Internet on a virtually unlimited number of topics. Where the state provides access to a "vast democratic forum[]," Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), open to any member of the public to speak on subjects "as diverse as human thought," id. at 870 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the state's decision selectively to exclude from the forum speech whose content the state disfavors is subject to strict scrutiny, as such exclusions risk distorting the marketplace of ideas that the state has facilitated. Application of strict scrutiny finds further support in the extent to which public libraries' provision of Internet access uniquely promotes First Amendment values in a manner analogous to traditional public fora such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, in which content-based restrictions are always subject to strict scrutiny.

Under strict scrutiny, a public library's use of filtering software is permissible only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest and no less restrictive alternative would serve that interest. We acknowledge that use of filtering software furthers public libraries' legitimate interests in preventing patrons from accessing visual depictions of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors, material harmful to minors. Moreover, use of filters also helps prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content on the Internet.

We are sympathetic to the position of the government, believing that it would be desirable if there were a means to ensure that public library patrons could share in the informational bonanza of the Internet while being insulated from materials that meet CIPA's definitions, that is, visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of minors, harmful to minors. Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, is not available in this less than best of all possible worlds. No category definition used by the blocking programs is identical to the legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography, or material harmful to minors, and, at all events, filtering programs fail to block access to a substantial amount of content on the Internet that falls into the categories defined by CIPA. As will appear, we credit the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg that the blocking software is (at least for the foreseeable future) incapable of effectively blocking the majority of materials in the categories defined by CIPA without overblocking a substantial amount of materials. Nunberg's analysis was supported by extensive record evidence. As noted above, this inability to prevent both substantial amounts of underblocking and overblocking stems from several sources, including limitations on the technology that software filtering companies use to gather and review Web pages, limitations on resources for human review of Web pages, and the necessary error that results from human review processes.

Because the filtering software mandated by CIPA will block access to substantial amounts of constitutionally protected speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest, we are persuaded that a public library's use of software filters is not narrowly tailored to further any of these interests. Moreover, less restrictive alternatives exist that further the government's legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors, and in preventing patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content. To prevent patrons from accessing visual depictions that are obscene and child pornography, public libraries may enforce Internet use policies that make clear to patrons that the library's Internet terminals may not be used to access illegal speech. Libraries may then impose penalties on patrons who violate these policies, ranging from a warning to notification of law enforcement, in the appropriate case. Less restrictive alternatives to filtering that further libraries' interest in preventing minors from exposure to visual depictions that are harmful to minors include requiring parental consent to or presence during unfiltered access, or restricting minors' unfiltered access to terminals within view of library staff. Finally, optional filtering, privacy screens, recessed monitors, and placement of unfiltered Internet terminals outside of sight-lines provide less restrictive alternatives for libraries to prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to sexually explicit content on the Internet.

In an effort to avoid the potentially fatal legal implications of the overblocking problem, the government falls back on the ability of the libraries, under CIPA's disabling provisions, see CIPA 1712 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(3)), CIPA 1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(D)), to unblock a site that is patently proper yet improperly blocked. The evidence reflects that libraries can and do unblock the filters when a patron so requests. But it also reflects that requiring library patrons to ask for a Web site to be unblocked will deter many patrons because they are embarrassed, or desire to protect their privacy or remain anonymous. Moreover, the unblocking may take days, and may be unavailable, especially in branch libraries, which are often less well staffed than main libraries. Accordingly, CIPA's disabling provisions do not cure the constitutional deficiencies in public libraries' use of Internet filters.

Under these circumstances we are constrained to conclude that the library plaintiffs must prevail in their contention that CIPA requires them to violate the First Amendment rights of their patrons, and accordingly is facially invalid, even under the standard urged on us by the government, which would permit us to facially invalidate CIPA only if it is impossible for a single public library to comply with CIPA's conditions without violating the First Amendment. In view of the limitations inherent in the filtering technology mandated by CIPA, any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Given this conclusion, we need not reach plaintiffs' arguments that CIPA effects a prior restraint on speech and is unconstitutionally vague. Nor do we decide their cognate unconstitutional conditions theory, though for reasons explained infra at note 36, we discuss the issues raised by that claim at some length.

For these reasons, we will enter an Order declaring Sections 1712(a)(2) and 1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6), respectively, to be facially invalid under the First Amendment and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing those provisions.

An Anonymous Coward sent in somewhat troubling news for people who like high-speed internet access at reasonable prices: the Baby Bells have won their legal challenge of FCC rules requiring them to accomodate competitors providing high-speed internet access. The FCC has already been moving toward this on its own (the FCC is headed by political appointees appointed by the President), but this court decision will accelerate it: neither the current FCC nor the courts are going to stop the Bells from squeezing out their competition. There's a CNet story and the decision is online.

Slashback with a weekend worth of updates on Wal-Mart's OS-free PC, the End of the Simpsons, Harlan Ellison v. AOL, wireless goodies and more. Read on below for the goods.

There must be some mistake; this is what I wanted. Masem writes: "The review of the OS-less PCs sold through Wal-Mart brought out a lot of comments on the inclusion of a WinModem, effectively requiring Windows to make the computer work correctly. However, NewsForge reports that shortly after that posting, Microtel, the makers of these computers, wrote back to the reviewer and indicated that new versions of the systems will ship with Linux-friendly modems from now on. Nice to see a company that knows its target audience and how to make them happy."

Thanks, Microtel!

Next: ethernet cable manufacturers. cpt kangarooski writes: "For those tuning in late, Harlan Ellison sued AOL (among others) for having the temerity to permit users to upload copies of his copyrighted works across their networks on the Usenet. As it turns out, AOL was in the right, and got a summary judgment against Ellison.

The opinion by Judge Cooper is located here in PDF format Given his reputation, Ellison will likely appeal."

Welcome to Ix, please take off your shoes. cayle clark writes "A few months back I asked slashdot about shopping in the Akihabara, Tokyo's famous "electric town," and got lots of good advice. Well, now I been and went there, took some pictures, and posted an illustrated account here. Netting it out, it's a keen place to wander, and prices are in some (but only some) cases lower than in the USA."

Hacking at the ties that bind Following up on the new venture in wireless from the LinuxCare crew, Dave Sifry writes "802.11b Networking News wrote up a summary of the new Sputnik Gateway release today, codenamed Stagecoach. The Community Gateway code runs from CD and turns a computer with an ethernet card and Prism 802.11b card into a secure authenticating firewalled 802.11b Access Point. New features of this release include support for desktop cards, like the Linksys WMP11 PCI card, which means that you can turn your old 486 in a closet into a cheap secure wireless router."

I'd rather they save Futurama, but gift horse, teeth, etc. Remik writes "Yahoo News is carrying this story letting Simpsons creator Matt Groening set the record straight that the Simpsons isn't winding down and that it isn't on the ropes. He claims he was misquoted and misunderstood in a Financial Times of London article that came out earlier this week and that he does indeed has stories for years and years. What if Marge became a robot? Hmm..."

Has anyone detected the envelope with the winner's name yet? SoundGuy666 writes "Looks like SETI made it past that 500 million milestone - wonder who won the $500 prize..."

tekneeq writes "According to this article on Yahoo, the FCC will require all US wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to provide law enforcement with surveillance capabilities by June 30th. Carriers will have to supply a multitude of information upon request, such as numbers dialed after a call is connected, call forwarding signals, and signals pertaining to voice mail services." Although it's hard to tell from the Reuters story, this is a continuation of a lawsuit filed against CALEA a few years ago. Read on for more.

This is a complex issue that we don't cover very often, so it requires some background. CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. EPIC has a set of pages about CALEA, a law enacted in 1994 to require telephone companies to build "tap-ability" into their communications equipment. This is voice traffic, not data - don't get this confused with Carnivore, the FBI's tool for slurping down internet traffic. At the time, carriers were transitioning from analog networks to digital ones, and there was some concern that the new digital network would not permit the FBI to listen in easily. Due to the possible expenses incurred by the telephone companies in implementing this, Congress greased the skids with a $500,000,000 (yes, that's half a billion dollars) grant to the companies. Congress granted the FCC the power to decide exactly how to implement this, and the FCC asked for comments. The FBI suggested that the rules should make sure lots of information was available to the FBI, the civil liberties groups suggested that the rules should make sure little information (or at least no more than was available in the old analog system) was available to the FBI, and the phone companies suggested that the rules be inexpensive.

Let's go back in time a moment to look at the old, analog way of doing things. In a nutshell, there are two different ways to conduct a government search on someone's telephone calls: you can search to see who was calling who, or you can search to get the actual content of a telephone call. The first type of search is called a pen register or trap and trace. The pen register is the list of phone numbers you've called. Trap and trace gets the numbers of people who call you. These were (at one time) literal devices which would be physically attached to your phone line. Both of these have been seen by the courts and Congress as much less private (after all, you're "giving" the information to the phone company with every call) than the actual content of your calls, which can only be obtained with a wiretap. Under the old rules, getting pen register or trap and trace information requires only a simple warrant, issued by any judge. Under the law, the judge does not even have the discretion to refuse to issue the order! Nor should you get the impression that this is solely the FBI. Many states allow similar telecommunications searches, and in fact state law enforcement does the bulk of them.

The open question was, with many new digital phone services becoming available, what information would be obtainable with the (non-refusable) pen register or trap and trace-type order, and what would require a real search warrant where a judge is supposed to exercise his discretion in deciding whether to grant it or not? That is, in what cases would "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." be applied, and in what cases would the government be allowed to simply take the information without meeting those requirements?

Eventually the FCC released its interpretation of what the phone companies should do to implement CALEA. The FCC required several things that were "new" and expanded law enforcement's surveillance abilities. One requirement was that all the digits you dial after the call is put through be recorded and provided. So if you dial your bank to transfer funds to checking, or dial your voicemail to retrieve it, or send a message to someone's pager, your bank account number and PIN, your voicemail password, whatever you sent to the pager - all that can be retrieved without a search warrant by any law enforcement official. The FCC also required that if you were using a cell phone, that your physical location be provided as well. They required that if more than two people were on the line, complete information about who joined or dropped out of the conference call be made available. Similarly, data about call waiting or call forwarding was to be provided if these were used. And finally, if you were using VOIP, the government could get all the headers of all your packets sent during the call.

Cue the lawsuits. Civil liberties groups were concerned that the rules were too broad, the FBI was happy (the FCC had given them all they could want), and the telephone companies were concerned that the changes would be too expensive. The civil liberties groups and the telecom industry filed suits to force the FCC to revise its order.

In the case at hand, the telecom industry sued, claiming various things but attempting, in general, to reduce the cost of compliance. The lawsuit was partially successful. The court rejected certain aspects of the FCC's order, and accepted the cell-location and packet-headers parts. The reason for rejecting the other parts was basically that the FCC did not justify itself sufficiently - there are various requirements, created by previous courts, that when an agency creates rules like this that will have the force of law, that they do so in a reasonable and justified manner. The court felt that the stricken requirements did not meet this standard, and chucked the ball back into the FCC's court.

Fast-forward to today. The FCC has reinstated all of the four requirements that were stricken by the courts, and this time it took pains to justify itself. That's what the Reuters article linked above is talking about, and you can read the order yourself in text or in PDF.

There are other lawsuits filed against CALEA that have not yet concluded. Rulings in those may be expected this summer.

As a sidenote, a great many other laws have passed since then expanding other surveillance activities. Under them, the government can now record your internet-browsing activities in much the same way as they can can trace your phone calls - without judicial supervision. If you haven't already, you might wish to read more about the PATRIOT Act.

Slashback tonight brings you several updates and amplifications on everything from Java in phones and a GPS system in Europe, to the future of Internet audio streaming and (related) near-unbelievable proposed tariffs on nearly anything that will hold data (in Canada). Read on below for the details.

The man is not often wrong. Doc Searls writes: "I wrote a piece piece at the Linux Journal site that you might want to check out. The very first comment is 'This needs to be Slashdotted.' I agree. And not because I'm looking for attention. I want to *call* attention to the CARP Report, which will kill Webcasting with fees. It's a big deal, and I don't see anybody else talking about it. Yet. And we need to."

Would you say that these are more 'puppies," "babies," or "mommas"? Vladimir Vuksan writes: "There are already hundreds of so called Java midlets that will presumably execute on these Nokia puppies or any other Java enabled browser. Check out http://midlet.org/jsp/index.jsp"

Too bad I can't get the entire Economist free just by reading the ads. FortKnox writes: "ZDNet is running a story about generic "Ad-Free Subscription Services" being used on the internet today. The review of these services is from the 'Ad Space Buyer' and how marketing execs are not keen on the idea. Something interesting to read, seeing Slashdot is testing the services."

How about a countersuit for strong-arm tactics? iosphere writes "According to an article on Wired, the judge in BT's case issued a ruling that questions whether or not the technology that was patented is really analogous to todays definition of a hyperlink. She questions how the patent, which was written with only a single computer terminal in mind, can apply to the internet as we know it now."

Update: 03/15 00:31 GMT by T : arget writes with a few more data points: "An article at News.com suggests that Prodigy has won a TKO in the first round. Another story at ZDNet is more neutral, but quotes an expert saying that prior art will 'come back to haunt BT's efforts.' Both articles agree that motions for summary judgement and probably a ruling will come soon."

Portable Monopoly kylus writes "Roughly a month after it was last mentioned here, the Gameboy Advance light project over at Portable Monopoly takes another step closer to fruition. While the official release date is in May, the group will begin accepting preorders on Friday, March 15th for the $35 light kit, which has been officially named 'Afterburner.' In addition to this news, they've provided some video captures of the product in action."

Remember, as reader Vito puts it, that's Portable Monopoly's warranty-voiding, solder-requiring, tech-support-suiciding Gameboy Advance internal lighting kit. :) Your own risk, et cetera.

This goes beyond disputes about how to spell "meter." meehawl writes with an update on the European Union's plans for a GPS workalike system, which we had previously reported had been scrapped.

"So after the Pentagon removed GPS's Selective Availability, the maximum GPS accuracy is typically within 10 to 20 meters. Differential GPS can reduce this to minute levels, very useful for calling in airstrikes and pinpointing installations, and so on.

So it's probably no surprise that the the European Union's plans to build their own GPS system, the Galileo Project, met such stern resistance from the U.S., with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asking EU defence ministers not to go ahead, saying it could complicate US satellite-assisted warfare and furthermore could be more easily used by anti-US military forces.

The EU has has now rejected the latest message from the U.S., a State Department exhortation to forgo development. Interestingly, the latest rebuff was framed as an anti-monopoly stance, that competition in satellite navigation would be good for business.

Apparently, Osama is responsible for this latest rebirth of the European space industry.

Perhaps more worryingly, in a related development a UK company was awarded the "Skynet 5" military communications system contract. Don't these people watch movies at all?"

The principle of the thing. Boone^ writes "It's been well covered, but The Tech Report has written a nice little article going through the finer points of the proposed levy and why there should be more people than just Canadians lobbying against it."

Perhaps some more apprentices will emerge from the woodwork? pynchin writes "Kyle Sallee, creator of Sorcerer GNU Linux has just announced on #sorcerer that he will no longer be involved with SGL. Some disgruntled SGL users forked the distro a few days ago -- see www.lunar-penguin.com for details."

Raziel writes: "The Register is reporting in this article that a district court has ruled in favour of "software users that wish to extricate themselves from restrictive software licenses". The case in question is Adobe vs Softman, and in its ruling, the District of California seems to vacate Adobe's claims of "irrepairable damage" caused by the resale of Adobe products without forcing the use of Adobe's registration process. The full ruling is available in PDF format here. Any chance of a precedent here?" You can also read the Don Marti piece piece that sparked this discussion.

Artagel writes: "The Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (covering appeals from federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands) has whacked a cybersquatter for registering misspellings("typosquatting")of the Joe Cartoon homepage. The Third Circuit is the place the ACLU brings suits when it wants to challenge federal laws regulating speech. It brought ACLU v. Reno case (first big internet free speech case) in the Third Circuit. I don't think that, in general, there is a friendlier forum for a free speech case, certainly not if the ACLU knows what it is doing. One more in the list of ways to get whacked on the internet. It is a precedent a lot of lower courts are likely to follow."

The first direct legal challenge to the DMCA was filed at 9 a.m. EDT today by EFF-sponsored attorneys at the United States District Court in Trenton, New Jersey on behalf of Princeton Professor Edward W. Felten and others who helped crack a series of digital watermarking schemes as part of an SDMI Challenge sponsored by the RIAA. Named defendents include the RIAA, SDMI, Verance Corporation (producer of one of the cracked watermarked schemes) and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

If this were a movie, it might be called "Saving Professor Felten" and would open with thunder and bombast. In real life, filing a civil suit in a federal court is one of the most boring activities imaginable, even though it's a necessary first step in the process of overturning the DMCA.

Gino J. Scarselli, Outside Lead Counsel for EFF on the case, says, "We got to the courthouse at 8:30, filed around 9, and made motions to seal exhibits to the complaints." As explained in the Complaint itself, EFF filed several of their Exhibits with requests for them to be sealed, because they believe publication of them may invite a lawsuit. The Exhibits to be sealed are Professor Felten's completed paper for the upcoming USENIX conference, and two documents written by Princeton post-grad Min Wu about the investigation performed by Felten's team against the SDMI watermarks.

It was an overcast day in Trenton. Scarselli, along with local (New Jersey) attorneys Grayson Barber and Frank Corrado, and two of the plaintiffs, Princeton residents Bede Liu and Min Wu, went through a metal detector just like anyone else (aside from staff) who enters a courthouse these days.

Scarselli says, "the only person we talked to was a law clerk." Neither the defendants nor any lawyers representing them were present. There will be plenty of conflict later, but the opening round of this drama was so low-key that it was a total yawner for all involved parties. The whole thing was over by 9:45 a.m.

The Complaint Itself, Very Briefly

Prof. Felten and others, mostly professors and graduate students from Princeton and Rice Universities, accepted the SDMI challenge to crack a specific set of digital watermarks, but instead of turning their results over to SDMI in hopes of winning the $10,000 prize offered for a successful crack, they chose instead to publish their findings in the form of an academic paper, and to present that paper at the Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop [IHW], held in Pittsburgh on April 25-27, 2001. Felten and crew believed they had every right to present their research in this public, peer-reviewed scientific forum even though they had accepted a "click through" agreement before taking on the SDMI challenge, in large part because the license to which they agreed with their click contained these words:

"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack."

Despite this, SDMI threatened Felten and the other involved parties, including IHW organizers, with legal action under the DMCA. After a long series of emails between Felten, his fellow researchers, IHW people, a representative of Verance Corp., and an attorney who works for both SDMI and RIAA, the original paper, "Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge," was first modified, then finally withdrawn.

Now Felten and friends plan to present the same paper at a USENIX Security Symposium in Washington, D.C. on August 13-17, and are asking the court to tell the defendants not to sue or threaten legal action over this new publication or any other publication, and to tell the U.S. Department of Justice, run by Attorney General John Ashcroft, not to file criminal charges against USENIX or anyone else over this matter under the DMCA. As it says in the complaint:

68. In chilling publication, the DMCA wreaks havoc in the marketplace of ideas, not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information -- the right to learn. The main mission of USENIX is to organize forums where scientists and researchers learn from each other. By intimidating the individual plaintiffs into withdrawing their paper from the IHW, however, the private Defendants prevented people from learning. If the source of Defendants' power to threaten, the DMCA, is not dispelled, Plaintiffs will not be the only victims. Without full and open access to research in areas potentially covered by the DMCA, scientists and programmers working in those areas cannot exchange ideas and fully develop their own research. As a consequence, the DMCA will harm science.

69. By imposing civil and criminal liability for publishing speech (including computer code) about technologies of access and copy control measures and copyright management information systems, the challenged DMCA provisions impermissibly restrict freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom and other rights secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This is just a brief "taste" of what the complaint says. Full text is available here.

The Press Conference

It was held at noon Eastern time, in person simultaneously at EFF headquarters in San Francisco and at a room borrowed from Princeton University. A few reporters were at EFF headquarters in person, but most of us dialed in and participated by phone. The media turnout was impressive; reporters from the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, AP, NPR, Reuters, Wired, and other major news outlets showed up, which was nice to see; Slashdot has been rather lonely in covering many DMCA matters and complaints. It was nice to see so many "mainstream" pressies finally paying attention.

Felten was in San Francisco. So was most of the legal crowd. USENIX Board member Avi Rubin was on the conference call telephone. The Princeton contingent was tiny, composed only of the people who had been at the court house earlier. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn opened the show from San Francisco with a rehash of the events leading up to the suit, most of which I recapped above. (You can find more information here.)

Felten spoke briefly. The basic thrust of his prepared speech can be summed up thusly: "We are asking the government to let us do what scientists have always done -- share the results of our research."

The USENIX people noted that they hold many conferences and may be subject to both civil suits and criminal prosecution if they publish papers DMCA legal threateners (like SDMI and RIAA) don't like, and view this suit as an attempt to maintain their First Amendment rights to freely distribute technical and scientific information to USENIX members and other interested parties.

Then the press questions began. The first dozen covered ground that is familiar to most regular Slashdot readers. There is no point in rehashing these questions when a Slashdot search for "SDMI + DMCA" or just "DMCA" will give answers to every one of them.

Then Hiawatha Bray, a tech columnist for the Boston Globe, wanted to know if the case would be dropped if the SDMI and/or RIAA decide to stop hassling Felten and USENIX. The attorneys said "No." Their point here is to prevent both private companies and the DoJ from bringing DMCA threats not only against the SDMI crack researchers but against anyone who might go through the same sort of ordeal in the future, so a settlement that affected only this case would not cause the EFF to drop it. Other questions and answers followed, but again, long-time Slashdot readers already know most of them, so we won't repeat them here.

Follow the Money

Ms. Cohn says the cost of this suit, "if fully litigated," could easily reach $2 million. She estimates that the EFF-sponsored 2600 DeCSS defense has already cost nearly $1.5 million, and that suit is still cranking up the appeals chain. She also says -- yes, this is a plug -- that Slashdot readers who want to donate money to help fund all this expensive legal action can check out the EFF Web site.

(Here's the EFF membership/donation page if you'd like to whip out your credit card and pop a few bucks their way; they need all they can get!)

This is Just the Beginning

Now, basically, we sit and wait. The lawyers do lawyer-dances involving lots of paperwork. Discovery motions pass back and forth. Amicus briefs get filed. A hearing date gets set, then there's a hearing, and another hearing, and so on.

The 2600/DeCSS case has been going on for a year and a half and still isn't over. This one is likely to drag out even more. Even if Prof. Felten, his associates, and USENIX win all the relief they seek, chances are high that the RIAA, SDMI or at least one of the other defendants will appeal -- and keep appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more info, read the EFF Press Release

An AC was the first to send in this CNN article about FBI wiretapping, based on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request. (I found the article funny because the documents were so heavily censored - the FBI gets to eavesdrop on the public, but not vice-versa.) According to CNN: wiretapping is up, up, up. But the Electronic Privacy Information Center notes that the U.S. court system has just released its annual wiretapping report, and according to EPIC, wiretapping is down. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 somewhere.

Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."

Wendy writes "Oral arguments in the Microsoft Case appeal are scheduled Monday and Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a first, the court is offering live audio streaming through ABC News and C-SPAN. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. -- monopoly maintenance and tying Monday; attempted monopolization, relief, and Judge Jackson's conduct of the trial Tuesday. Microsoft is, of course, appealing Jackson's breakup order and final judgment."

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a decision in the Eldred vs. Reno case, which challenged the most recent extension of copyright terms on the grounds that it violated the Constitution in several areas - that it violated the First Amendment by overbroadly restricting speech; that it gave protection to non-original works (since it retroactively applied to old, already-published works); and that the constant extensions of copyright terms were not a "limited Time" as required by the Constitution. The Court rejected all of these arguments. However, one of the three judges in the case wrote an interesting dissent, which at least holds out the hope that in some future case, skilled litigators may be able to convince the judiciary that permanent copyright is an unwarranted extension of Congress' powers.

Many people have sent in the breaking news from C|Net that the Appeals Court handling the Napster case wants to have the Napster injunction modified. The court website is throughly bogged, but the quick and dirty analysis is that Napster can continue to operate. Update by J : I've listed a couple of mirrors below if you can't get through to the court's site. I have some more comments below; the court's flat-out statement that "Napster users do not engage in fair use" is of special interest.

Mirrors:

• http://eon.law.harvard.edu/~wseltzer/napster.html
• http://www.politechbot.com/docs/napster.021201.html
• http://lvalue.com/nap.html

As Michael Sims points out, these 22 words are probably the most important portion of the ruling; everything else is technical details and window-dressing:

"...the record supports the district court's conclusion that Napster users do not engage in fair use of the copyrighted materials. We agree."

That doesn't look good for those who want to swap copyrighted music peer-to-peer. That same comment could probably apply to Gnutella users, for example. Brace for impact.

Moving on to the case of Napster specifically and what will happen in the immediate future...

The court found that the injunction is simply too broad in its current form, but bounced the case back to the district court with instructions, essentially, on how to do an injunction properly.

They were quite clear that an injunction should be issued to stop Napster:

The district court correctly recognized that a preliminary injunction against Napster's participation in copyright infringement is not only warranted but required.

But then went on to explain why the current injunction must be limited to the extent that Napster fails to comply with Metallica-style "here is the list of bad files" warnings. Only in such a situation can an injunction stand:

We believe, however, that the scope of the injunction needs modification in light of our opinion. Specifically, we reiterate that contributory liability may potentially be imposed only to the extent that Napster: (1) receives reasonable knowledge of specific infringing files with copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings; (2) knows or should know that such files are available on the Napster system; and (3) fails to act to prevent viral distribution of the works. ... The mere existence of the Napster system, absent actual notice and Napster's demonstrated failure to remove the offending material, is insufficient to impose contributory liability.

I'm not quite sure how this could be enforced. Obviously, anyone can rename any MP3 "metallica-master-of-puppets.mp3" and Napster is not capable of acting to prevent distribution of same. What Napster can do is kick users off the system who have been shown to be pirates. And since they have shown their willingness to comply in the past, I'm not sure whether the court will ever find that Napster will "fail to act."

Finally, there was this simple comment:

Napster may be vicariously liable when it fails to affirmatively use its ability to patrol its system and preclude access to potentially infringing files listed in its search index.

The move to patent anything, everything, and all that remains after those categories are exhausted continues apace. rozzin writes: "ColorMax, who makes colour-blindness-compensatory lenses, has acquired a "patent for the human genes responsible for common, hereditary, red-green colorblindness"." Read below for a longer take on another disputed patent, which raises the all-important issue of actually determining what all those words in a patent application really mean. We can probably agree on whether something is a sphere, but what about whether something is "type data," or what constitutes the act of location? How patentable ought such things be? (I suggest browsing The League for Programming Freedom site for some cogent thoughts on this, including RMS's "The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent." Can anyone point to the best online apologia favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting higher thresholds for them?)

Jim Lochowitz writes "A friend of mine just sent me this ( posted with permission) :

I just looked at Judge Zagel's ruling from yesterday in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 99 C 0626, which is currently pending in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Eolas alleges that Microsoft has infringed its patent, #5,838,906, issued November 18, 1998. If memory serves, the gist of the suit is that both Windows and Internet Explorer infringe the patent.

If you want to look at the text of the patent again, it can be found on the PTO's website [here]. (Or search for the patent #5,838,906 from [this] page.)

At this point in the case, the court is trying to resolve exactly *what* the patent covers before it can consider whether or not whatever Microsoft did infringed it. Yesterday's ruling had to do with what was meant by the following key language in the patent (found in Claim 1 and Claim 6):
"wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application".

As Judge Zagel put it,
"What is an executable application? What is type information that must be associated with the object? What does it mean for the type information to be utilized by said browser to identify and locate the executable application?"

Experts testified as to the answers to these questions. Eolas' expert was Edward Felten, who is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton. Microsoft's experts were H.E. Dunsmore, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue University, and Michael Wallent, Product Unit Manager for Internet Explorer.

Judge Zagel found that (as used in the patent language), an "executable application" is computer program code which is launched to enable an end-user to directly interact with data, and one which is not an operating system or utility. He found that "type information" "may include the name of an application associated with the object." Finally, he found that "utilized by said browser to identify and locate" meant that those functions are performed by the browser.

Now that Judge Zagel has determined what this key language in the patent means, the court is now in a position to determine whether Microsoft has, in fact, infringed the patent. Trial could be the next step. It will be interesting to see what happens! I suspect that no matter who wins at the trial court level, there is likely to be an appeal. It will be a while yet before we learn what the resolution will be.

If you want to read the text of the opinion yourself, you can find it on CourtWeb as [this] pdf file.

Many of the rulings thus far in the case are available online. Put in "Northern District of Illinois," hit the "proceed to CourtWeb" button, and then enter the case number on the next screen. (The case # is 99cv0626.) Put in the date range you want- note that the case was filed in February 1999.

"

The move to patent anything, everything, and all that remains after those categories are exhausted continues apace. rozzin writes: "ColorMax, who makes colour-blindness-compensatory lenses, has acquired a "patent for the human genes responsible for common, hereditary, red-green colorblindness"." Read below for a longer take on another disputed patent, which raises the all-important issue of actually determining what all those words in a patent application really mean. We can probably agree on whether something is a sphere, but what about whether something is "type data," or what constitutes the act of location? How patentable ought such things be? (I suggest browsing The League for Programming Freedom site for some cogent thoughts on this, including RMS's "The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent." Can anyone point to the best online apologia favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting higher thresholds for them?)

Jim Lochowitz writes "A friend of mine just sent me this ( posted with permission) :

I just looked at Judge Zagel's ruling from yesterday in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 99 C 0626, which is currently pending in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Eolas alleges that Microsoft has infringed its patent, #5,838,906, issued November 18, 1998. If memory serves, the gist of the suit is that both Windows and Internet Explorer infringe the patent.

If you want to look at the text of the patent again, it can be found on the PTO's website [here]. (Or search for the patent #5,838,906 from [this] page.)

At this point in the case, the court is trying to resolve exactly *what* the patent covers before it can consider whether or not whatever Microsoft did infringed it. Yesterday's ruling had to do with what was meant by the following key language in the patent (found in Claim 1 and Claim 6):
"wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application".

As Judge Zagel put it,
"What is an executable application? What is type information that must be associated with the object? What does it mean for the type information to be utilized by said browser to identify and locate the executable application?"

Experts testified as to the answers to these questions. Eolas' expert was Edward Felten, who is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton. Microsoft's experts were H.E. Dunsmore, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue University, and Michael Wallent, Product Unit Manager for Internet Explorer.

Judge Zagel found that (as used in the patent language), an "executable application" is computer program code which is launched to enable an end-user to directly interact with data, and one which is not an operating system or utility. He found that "type information" "may include the name of an application associated with the object." Finally, he found that "utilized by said browser to identify and locate" meant that those functions are performed by the browser.

Now that Judge Zagel has determined what this key language in the patent means, the court is now in a position to determine whether Microsoft has, in fact, infringed the patent. Trial could be the next step. It will be interesting to see what happens! I suspect that no matter who wins at the trial court level, there is likely to be an appeal. It will be a while yet before we learn what the resolution will be.

If you want to read the text of the opinion yourself, you can find it on CourtWeb as [this] pdf file.

Many of the rulings thus far in the case are available online. Put in "Northern District of Illinois," hit the "proceed to CourtWeb" button, and then enter the case number on the next screen. (The case # is 99cv0626.) Put in the date range you want- note that the case was filed in February 1999.

"

MrKhuel writes: "Professor Lee Hollaar of the University of Utah School of Computing has filed a neutral friend of the court brief, which has been posted with other electronically submitted documents in the Microsoft anti-trust appeal, discussing problems with some arguments for combining programs and how to test for the legality of program combination in anti-trust cases." Beyond the Microsoft case, this has some interesting applications.

MrKhuel writes: "Professor Lee Hollaar of the University of Utah School of Computing has filed a neutral friend of the court brief, which has been posted with other electronically submitted documents in the Microsoft anti-trust appeal, discussing problems with some arguments for combining programs and how to test for the legality of program combination in anti-trust cases." Beyond the Microsoft case, this has some interesting applications.

Some things to think about for ... international domain name purchasers; airline pilots with heavy 401K investments in Motorola, those whose religions forbid the purchase of Sony video game consoles; cracked-website fetishists / voyeurs. And of course, anyone else who wants to read them. More below. [timothy whips himself:] As rjh points out, it's not the FBI that raided Steve Jackson, but rather the Secret Service.

OK, now all we need is Tom Clancy, Steven Segal and a bad script ... code_rage writes "Wondering why Iridium has not been deorbited yet? Still care?

There are still some parties attempting to purchase the Iridium assets for pennies on the dollar. One party is pursuing the 'aircraft black box in the sky' concept advanced by several people in various forums, including Slashdot. The Iridium case docket sheet is located [here] Items # 761 & 762 are interesting.

These rather large PDF documents are scanned images of briefs filed on behalf of a party who has been interested in buying Iridium since last year, for the purposes of creating a continuously telemetered aircraft "black box" capability, to enhance civil aircraft safety. These briefs read like a John Grisham novel (particularly 762)... "

That's one way of putting it. On the other hand, the docket reads like a catalogue of everything that could (and did) go wrong with a high-tech, high-budget business venture.

Does "Sega" mean anything anyhow? Lucianno Edwards passed on this tidbit about Sega. "As a followup to the post on your website about sega going multiplatform: Sega doesn't plan to develop games for rival consoles, but to license their hardware to rival consoles, in a bleem-like fashion, which will allow DC games to run on anything which has the DC chip in it. Technically Sony could release an add-on for PS2 and Nintendo for Gamecube.

Sega wouldnt be paying license fees yet they'd still be selling games on rival consoles. It makes a lot of sense from a bussiness prospective.

It's all official. No more rumors." One more Sega bit, same pingin' source: Fervent writes "It's going to be on a GD-ROM, and it will run ten classic Genesis games. More details are on this article at Daily Radar."

Anyong Haseyo, chin-gu. An unnamed correspondent writes: "The Guild of System Administrators has released documentation and resources related to the new multilingual domain names."

So if you want to snatch up all the cool Chinese translations of "Coca Cola," you can consult their list of Registry Services, Registries, Commercial Technical "Solutions Providers, Standards Organizations, etc. Besides which, GSA looks like a cool site to check out anyhow.

A fairly convoluted way to get some free books from O'Reilly scjody writes "You may remember Dilinger, who had his computers seized a few weeks ago. According to his webpage, it has been returned."

Perhaps the FBI has decided that waiting for years to return equipment (as they did for Steve Jackson) wasn't good for their public image. Sure sounds like a better outcome than I was expecting -- congratulations, Dilinger.

Some things to think about for ... international domain name purchasers; airline pilots with heavy 401K investments in Motorola, those whose religions forbid the purchase of Sony video game consoles; cracked-website fetishists / voyeurs. And of course, anyone else who wants to read them. More below. [timothy whips himself:] As rjh points out, it's not the FBI that raided Steve Jackson, but rather the Secret Service.

OK, now all we need is Tom Clancy, Steven Segal and a bad script ... code_rage writes "Wondering why Iridium has not been deorbited yet? Still care?

There are still some parties attempting to purchase the Iridium assets for pennies on the dollar. One party is pursuing the 'aircraft black box in the sky' concept advanced by several people in various forums, including Slashdot. The Iridium case docket sheet is located [here] Items # 761 & 762 are interesting.

These rather large PDF documents are scanned images of briefs filed on behalf of a party who has been interested in buying Iridium since last year, for the purposes of creating a continuously telemetered aircraft "black box" capability, to enhance civil aircraft safety. These briefs read like a John Grisham novel (particularly 762)... "

That's one way of putting it. On the other hand, the docket reads like a catalogue of everything that could (and did) go wrong with a high-tech, high-budget business venture.

Does "Sega" mean anything anyhow? Lucianno Edwards passed on this tidbit about Sega. "As a followup to the post on your website about sega going multiplatform: Sega doesn't plan to develop games for rival consoles, but to license their hardware to rival consoles, in a bleem-like fashion, which will allow DC games to run on anything which has the DC chip in it. Technically Sony could release an add-on for PS2 and Nintendo for Gamecube.

Sega wouldnt be paying license fees yet they'd still be selling games on rival consoles. It makes a lot of sense from a bussiness prospective.

It's all official. No more rumors." One more Sega bit, same pingin' source: Fervent writes "It's going to be on a GD-ROM, and it will run ten classic Genesis games. More details are on this article at Daily Radar."

Anyong Haseyo, chin-gu. An unnamed correspondent writes: "The Guild of System Administrators has released documentation and resources related to the new multilingual domain names."

So if you want to snatch up all the cool Chinese translations of "Coca Cola," you can consult their list of Registry Services, Registries, Commercial Technical "Solutions Providers, Standards Organizations, etc. Besides which, GSA looks like a cool site to check out anyhow.

A fairly convoluted way to get some free books from O'Reilly scjody writes "You may remember Dilinger, who had his computers seized a few weeks ago. According to his webpage, it has been returned."

Perhaps the FBI has decided that waiting for years to return equipment (as they did for Steve Jackson) wasn't good for their public image. Sure sounds like a better outcome than I was expecting -- congratulations, Dilinger.