Slashback: Google, China, Network Neutrality

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Google's reasoning behind rejecting the DoJ motion, more fodder for the Chinese censorship fire, one of last weeks "first computers" brought to life, the New York Times backs network neutrality, hard drive death dance tracks, Serenity enters the black, and the USPTO issues a final rejection in RIM patent case -- Read on for details.

Google's reasoning behind rejecting the DoJ motion. xandroid writes "Google's blog has an explanation of their response to the DoJ motion." They have also provided a link to the entire 25 page response [PDF] sent to the DoJ.

Chinese censorship continues to be a hot topic. Mercury News is running an interesting article about the recent scolding top tech companies received from Washington with regards to assisting in censoring the internet in China. However, the Washington Post also has an interesting article regarding a senior editor at the China Youth Daily who posted a 'blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials.' And finally, Wikipedia remains blocked in China despite the continued efforts of fans to correct the problem.

1960's Digicomp toy computer back in production. Larry Groebe writes "With all the talk last week about "first computers" on Slashdot and around the net, I was surprised to see only one mention of the Digicomp. A group of us keep the memories alive on Yahoo's 'Friends of Digicomp' group, and one enterprising member has managed to reconstruct the computer and is now selling them again for the first time in three decades. Its' a nostalgia trip for some of us; an eye opener for people who never experienced it; and still carries more than a bit of educational value. After all, even in these days of MAKE magazine, how many other true build-it-from-scratch computer kits are there?"

New York Times backs network neutrality. joshdick writes "In a recent editorial, The New York Times voices strong support for legislation requiring network neutrality. From the article: 'Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests.'"

Hard drive death dance tracks. daithedragon writes "A while back Gizmodo awarded the prizes in a competition to make a dance tracks out of the recorded noises of hard drives dying."

Serenity enters the black. stuart1310 writes "According to sliceofscifi.com the DVD sales of Joss Whedon's Serenity have recently climbed out of the red and started making profit for Universal. Beware, these numbers are estimates and even if accurate we've still a sight to go before seeing Serenity on TV or in the theaters again. Here is to hoping we do."

USPTO issue final rejection in RIM patent case. tsalaroth writes "ABC News is reporting that the USPTO has officially rejected at least one of the patents in the Blackberry infringement case. From the article: 'The U.S. patent office on Wednesday issued its first of several anticipated final rejections of patents held by NTP Inc. related to Research in Motion's BlackBerry device, two days before a judge will hear arguments on an injunction on the wireless e-mail service.'"

Comments

Aren't spaceships always in the black?

[ScaryFroMan]

Subject aside, when was the last time that a slashback didn't mention Firefly/Serenity?

Google's next request for searchs response

[OYAHHH]

I'm,

Just wondering what Google is going to do when the Chinese authorities ask for the same search information for which the US has asked.

Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[panaceaa]

Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?

Google's responses so far in the congressional hearings about their China business indicate they obey all laws within the countries they operate, including China. So if Chinese officials can legally ask for search information for Chinese citizens, Google's current stance is that they will provide it.

Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare. And it's much easier to gain marketshare in an early market than a late market (e.g. Coke versus Virgin Cola). However, obeying China's current laws is becoming a public relations nightmare for Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo) and it is tarnishing Google's "do no evil" image.

China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, though, and therefore I believe it will continue to obey all Chinese laws including providing search information in order to have a presence in China's growing economy.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[joggle]

Google claims they aren't storing any personal info though on the censored google.cn site. So while they would have to turn over anonymous search info (assuming they are storing it), they couldn't give personal information since there isn't any to give.

From google's blog:

Privacy and Security. Google is committed to protecting consumer privacy and confidentiality. Prior to the launch of Google.cn, Google conducted intensive reviews of each of our services to assess the implications of offering it directly in China. We are always conscious of the fact that data may be subject to the jurisdiction of the country where it is physically stored. With that in mind, we concluded that, at least initially, only a handful of search engine services would be hosted in China.

We will not store data somewhere unless we are confident that we can meet our expectations for the privacy and security of users' sensitive information. As a practical matter, meeting this user interest means that we have no plans to host Gmail, Blogger, and a range of other such services in China.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[Mistshadow2k4]

You're missing the point. It is legal in China for the Chinese government to demand such records. The legal basis for the US government to do so is dodgy, if not downright illegal. And no, I'm not a Google fangirl - if you read some of my posts you'll see that I don't like them for obeying the government that masacred so many non-violent protesters. I'm actually boycotting them myself.

Re:Google's next request for searchs response

[StikyPad]

Personally, I think Google/Yahoo/MSN are being scapegoated in this China deal. Disobeying Chinese law is simply not an option, and abstaining from the Chinese market benefits no one. Getting their collective feet in the door is the first step toward effecting change anyway. If they're successful, it gives them bargaining power. Maybe not much, but certainly more than they have as outsiders.

Obeying the laws of the host country is simply the price of doing business. We expect visitors to the US to obey our laws when they're in our country, despite the fact that some of our laws (DMCA, PATRIOT Act, substance prohibitions) impose on the rights foreign travellers might enjoy in their home countries. There's no reason to expect otherwise when the situation is reversed. We can't have it both ways.

Take Me Out Into the Black

[Aidski]

"Tell them I ain't comin back"

So I'm a Firefly nerd, sue me.

Sniff....I had a DigiComp....Sniff...

[GeneralEmergency]

Seeing that picture brought back alot of memories and the realization that the one decent thing my "Absentee Dad" ever did for me was to buy that thing and send it to me.

I had mine for years but finally tossed it out because of missing parts. Now I can buy a new one.

Sniff.

Network Neutrality won't work

[cfulmer]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out. I wrote an article about this at the Duke Law & Technology Review.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Jherek Carnelian]

the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.

So, instead of giving up more control of public utilities, give them less control and put it back in the hands of the public.

Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' After all, it is only the pipes that are a public resource (or really the right-of-way to lay the 'pipes' across private property) - content is not a public resource so companies that get a government granted monopoly should not be allowed to leverage that monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets. Once upon a time, that kind of abuse would have been considered a clear violation of the sherman anti-trust act, now it seems to be taken for granted, the public good be damned.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Guy Harris]

So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out.

So how is this handled in other countries? Do any other countries require network neutrality on the part of circuit providers (i.e., providers of raw pipes to the customer) or ISPs (who could be the same entity as the raw pipe provider, or could be somebody buying raw pipe capacity)? If so, how has that affected the rollout of broadband services?

Googling for

crtc "network neutrality"

found this Toronto Star piece by Michael Geist, which argues in favor of Canada adopting a policy requiring network neutrality (and says that one telco, Telus, brieftly blocked access by its customers to a Web site set up by a union with which it was having a dispute), so I presume there was, at least at that time, no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in Canada.

Googling for

europe "network neutrality"

found other pieces by Michael Geist, which indicate that some European carriers are blocking VoIP traffic, so I assume there's no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in the countries in which they're doing that.

On the other hand, Googling for

france "network neutrality"

found a piece by Lawrence Lessig arguing that France and Japan offer better high-speed broadband than is available in the US (which might even be true in areas of comparable housing density) and required "strict unbundling", which Lessig describes as even more stringent than network neutrality.

However, it also found this blog item on the Progress and Freedom Foundation site, citing arguments before congress that a key point, at least in the case of France, was that "France operated in a monopoly environment".

So a quick Google found no obvious single conclusion about this issue. I'd be curious to see what people who aren't strong advocates of either position have to say about the raw(er) data.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[cfulmer]

What's up with the personal attack? That's not cool. Did you even read the article?

The problem is not with current Internet services -- I don't think that my ISP ought to charge websites extra fee for, say, downloading music from iTunes or posting to Slashdot. After all, that's what I'm paying for now.

The bigger problem is that if ISPs roll out very-high-bandwidth networks, the are going to be opening up an entire new avenue of competition for their other services. Madison River, a telephone company that provides broadband internet, for example, blocked Vonage service unless their subscribers paid an extra fee. That got slapped down by the FCC under the old rules. Under the current regulatory scheme, however, it's not at all clear that the FCC has that authority. After all, that's why you see network neutrality proposals in Congress.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[max born]

From your article:

Removing the neutrality requirement allows the ISP to avoid the risk that a competitor will use the ISP's increased bandwidth to compete with it.

Ideally this would work. The problem is that there's often not much competition, many people have only one choice of ISP.

I've been building IP netwroks for nearly ten years and IMHO ISPs (perhaps like the drug companies) greatly inflate the amount of their investments in infrastructure. The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires and switches. I'd much rather see the ISPs concentrate on building fat pipes and get out of the content business.

Re:Network Neutrality won't work

[Jherek Carnelian]

Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue.

So what is my $50/month cable-modem bill? Chopped liver?

Too much irony to take

[Anonymous Coward]

The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government.
Aside from the fact that it should be the job of the US poulation to do this, and the profound irony of a corporation
standing up for rights the ordinary individual is too apathetic and mentally lazy to deal with there is the
hilarious spectre of Washington chastising Google and Yahoo over their censorship. Could the irony be any richer? As if Washington had any moral weight left in this world whatsoever. High soap opera if you ask me. The USA just looks a little sadder and more lost with each passing day.

Re:Too much irony to take

[geekee]

"The fascinating news for me is Google, a private company standing up to the fascist tyranny of the US government."

No, the US govt. wants anonymous data, but Google doesn't want to give up any data that might reveal how they do search algorithms. Google isn't looking out for your privacy. It's just a coincidence.

Re:In other news...

[ZachPruckowski]

So who's this Anonymous Coward guy, and why can't he make up his damn mind?

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Rich Road]

While you would expect final rejections of these patents/applications to end NTP's case against RIM, a final rejection is anything but final. NTP can (and based upon the stakes, probably will) appeal the decision to the board of patent appeals, and possibly to the federal courts. Only when NTP has exhausted all of their options will the entire NTP v. RIM saga end.

Serenity probably not profitable

[fremen]

A common mistake in financial planning is to just add and subtract money together over time to decide whether or not something is profitable. Profit = Revenue - Costs, so this makes sense to mose people. Let's assume that Universal gets 55% of rental dollars (like ticket sales) and that they get $10 per DVD (wild guess).

($38 million in ticket sales*(55%) + $9 million in rentals*(55%) + ($10 per DVD * 2 million DVDs)) - $49 million production costs = $-3.15 million.

Surely the movie is close to being profitable, right? Well, not exactly. You also have to consider Universal's cost of capital, which is essentially the opportunity cost of making a risky investment. In layman's terms, Universal could have put their money elsewhere instead. Roughly (and with lots of guessing), let's say that the cost of capital was 15% (market average is 10.4% and movies are far riskier investments than the market).

Assuming the capital investments followed a pattern where the movie's costs came in year 0, the advertising in year 1, the ticket sales in year 2, and the DVD rentals in year 3, then the Net Present Value of this investment would now be:

(-39) + (-10)/(1.15) + ((25 + 13) * 0.55)/(1.15)^2 + (9 * 0.55)/(1.15)^3 + (10 * 2 million)/(1.15)^3 = -15.4 million

Based on some educated guess work, I think it's safe to say that Universal is still way in the hole on this one.

Good question.

[interactive_civilian]

ScaryFroMan asks:

Subject aside, when was the last time that a slashback didn't mention Firefly/Serenity?

Drum roll, please.

And the answer is...

Last week.

Thank you for playing.

In fact, it appears to be have been quite some time since Serenity was mentioned.

Re:NTP Patent invalidated?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

So is there a good legal reason why a judge would enforce an injunction against RIM if one of the patents has been rejected, and it looks like the others will be too?

I can't imagine any lawyer worth his fees not making strained, vociferous arguments for an indefinite continuance (until the Patent Office releases its final reports on these patents) to rule on the motion for the injunction.

If the patents are all invalidated, (and there are indications that very well could happen) what needs to happen is for RIM to sue the owners and directors of NTP into corporate and personal bankruptcy. The reality is that this frivolous litigation has cost RIM plenty of money in both potential business and copious resources dedicated to upgrading RIM's infrastructure and software to sidestep the patents.

The reality is that there are businesses that were formed for the sole purpose of using lawyers to extort money from other businesses with stealth-patent portfolios. These leeches need to be discouraged, and a couple financial death penalties directed at the instigators of this scheme would go a long way towards scaring companies out of the frivolous patent lawsuit game. An outcome like that for the NTP-gang would make the patent sheistering into a risky proposition instead of easy-money for the well-heeled elite who can afford to buy up patents on the sly, only to spring them on successful entreprenuers later.

This will buy us time until we can finally get the Congress to enact reasonable patent reform. Or hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[ixl]

Actually, TFA states that Serenity has made the studios $9 million in rentals. Retail sales would be in addition to this amount.

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[fm6]

Don't get too hooked. Joss Whedon announced that Firefly was gone for good some time ago.

Why only question tech companies?

[Dot_Killer]

Are we now expecting some US government determined business ethics for US companies? When did that start?

I see the reason why people are talking about Google, Yahoo, M$ and Cisco dealings in China. BUT it is sort of limited in scope. Why are the Republicans and Congress focusing on technology companies' business practices only. It is just another easy political game. US companies do billions of dollars of business in China and the congress is concerned that US tech companies are following the authorities of China on what they are allowed to do in their country. Could a foreign company operative in the US that did not follow restrictions that the US has laid out? So why do we expect US companies to go to China and operate in a way in which the government would not allow them, China could just pull the plug. The US likes the idea of the internet being another venue to expand the US culture around the world, the same way movies and tv already do; but not necessarily spreading freedom.

The US government only agitates in this when a government is in power that they do not agree with. I doubt they are asking for more real freedom in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I wont get into all that right now.

I actually wish a deeper debate on US company ethics and practices around the world. Why are we jumping on Google. Have you seen what Walmart is doing in China; check out the Walmart movie. We should be discussing the "race to the bottom" mentallity occuring now by US companies. We should be asking what US oil companies are doing in Africa, clothing companies in East Asia, companies in Mexico and Central America. We should be talking about humane work conditions, fair wages, end to police state enforced sweatshops.

The tech companies pose a problem because they are actually undermining US policy toward China by allowing China to weed out Western influences. But the Republicans or Congress as a whole don't seem to care about the race to the bottom happening all over the world.

Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me...

[sab39]

No he didn't. He said that making Serenity brought "closure", but that's not the same as being finished for good. He followed up with a clarification once it was clear that lots of people were misinterpreting what he'd said. Check previous slashbacks for the link.

I'm not saying there's a huge amount of hope for the show to be reborn, but Joss has never ruled it out.

Keep buying those DVDs! :)

Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article

[Robotech_Master]

Actually, everybody's wrong.

Serenity will never make a profit.

Why? Because no movie ever makes a profit.

Just ask all the writers and so forth who were naive enough to sign contracts awarding them a percentage of the net profit, rather than a percentage of the gross intake--including one of my favorite fantasy novelists, Peter S. Beagle, who is still owed a great deal of money for his work on the Rankin/Bass Lord of the Rings movie. It's questionable whether he'll ever see a penny of the $200 million that was paid to the rights-holder out of the Peter Jackson movies...