Archive for politics
June 6, 2006 at · Filed under internet, politics
i wrote about it in the past, and it is becoming worst.
it seems like every day there is a new failed company suing a successful company for infringing on its patents (a failed company is actually a good case, in many cases the company filing the lawsuit never tried to build a real business but rather started by buying a patent and hiring lawyers on success fee).
the latest case in the news is Net2Phone suing Skype. since Skype got acquired by eBay it has been sues by at least 3 companies, all looking to stick their hands into eBay's deep pockets.
it is getting to the point where it is out of control, and is starting to hurt businesses. the whole patent system should be changed, it is old, corrupt and misguided, and now it is being abused. it has become Plan B for many companies, and i hear it from start-ups more and more "well we're building a real IP portfolio, so even if we don't make it as a business we can always sue anyone that goes into that space". and this is the good ones, the bad ones are lawyers with an entrepreneurial spirit who want to go into the business of buying patents and than suing companies.
there are 2 approaches: focused and big, spread and small.
Focused and Big - this is the case of NTP vs. RIM. go after a big company with deep pockets and threaten to put it out of business. it takes years, but the reward could be huge (ask RIM..).
Spread and Small - this is the case of Accacia vs. the rest of the world. go after hundreds thousands of companies. ask them for a small license fee (e.g. $5000), otherwise you will sue. for most companies it makes more sense to pay than to pay legal fees. so they pay. pure extortion business.
obviously i have a problem with both tactics, and i hope sooner rather than later the laws will be changed, but since i have zero faith in this (or the next) congress i am not optimistic on this one. it going to get much uglier before it gets better.
June 5, 2006 at · Filed under books, politics, religion
took me a long time but i am finally done with the "clash of civilizations".
it was one of the best and thought provoking books i have ever read. i should have read it long ago.
had to stop many times to debate (mostly with myself) its assertions, many of them contradictory to what i believe.
while i think it is a must-read book i disagree with some of its basic assumptions and summary conclusions (plus i think it makes a very self-serving and shallow use of statistics and anecdotal evidence to prove its point).
the analysis of post cold-war international relations is eye opening. drawing the relationship between different cultures and future conflicts proved to be prescient. specifically the escalation between Islam and the West, and the growing tensions between China and the US.
the main points where i disagree with him are around the values of the West and their applicability to the rest of the world, and related to it the simplistic (in my opinion) and too static view of the differences between civilizations (and the people that make them up).
Huntingtion identifies several values as being Western Values among them democracy, human rights, individualism. he claims towards the end of the book that anyone who have read this book so far, and still believes that Western values have universal appeal is living in a different reality. well i guess i qualify as one of these people.
i don't think all Western values are universal (e.g. individualism), but others (e.g. human rights) are. with the benefit of hindsight i think that the improved communication and information sharing capabilities are proving that people from all civilizations are aspiring to Western freedoms. it does not mean adopting all Western values, but it may be the case that it is impossible to adopt just some of these values. in which case we'll see all civilizations not just modernize, but also westernize (this goes against the main theme of the book).
the differences between civilizations will still exist, and nations (in some cases civilizations) will still want to assert themselves and grow their influence, so that part of Huntington's theory still stands. the West superiority will not last forever, but whomever takes over will most likely do it using western "tools".
a book which makes it to my must-read list, but in my opinion should not be taken as the bible on international relations, and a crystal ball for where the world is headed.
May 7, 2006 at · Filed under politics
first time i heard the minority leader in congress speak was today in Meet the Press.
i was amazed by this woman.
it was so obvious she was trying to stick to the "message" of the democratic party (probably because she read/heard from pundits that this is the way republicans win elections). repeating meaningless slogans such as the "real security" plan, "making 2006 a year of transition in iraq", while avoiding answering direct questions with clear answers.
beyond all these insulting answers (insulting because i hate it when politicians regard the voter as stupid), it was also clear to me that nancy is not very bright.. i hope the democrats will win and take back the congress, but it is a shame that nancy will be the speaker of the house. i don't know what the requirements are for this role, but if being smart is one of them i think she is not qualified.
May 4, 2006 at · Filed under politics, religion
it is interesting to follow the growing rift between the vatican and china.
the latest clash is over the consecration of two new bishops without first clearing it with the vatican, which apparently is a serious offense and a "grave wound" to the unity of the church (according to the vatican).
all the chinese are trying to do is to control the church in china, so it does not become a source for civil unrest, like the falun gong. this is pretty reasonable approach from a totalitarian state that is looking to minimize any threat to its power.
i think i am on the side of the chinese on this one. since it is a state-run religion, why should they be taking orders from some old german conservative, sitting in rome? what does he know about the qualification of these guys to become bishops?. the most important qualification for this position should be their support of the government and its policies, the value of obedience, and only then the minor issue of their knowledge of the catholic principles, the bible and all that.
the vatican position is that these bishops are now by definition ex-communicated (it's an automatic feature, also applied to women who go through abortion), since it was done without the vatican consent, and not according to due process. the vatican is really concerned that the new bishops have not gone through the required "spiritual preparation" for the job.
i assume "spiritual preparation" includes guidelines on how to collect money from the masses, bank account numbers for where to send the money, standard procedure for when you get caught with choir-boys, etc.
btw, this pope is really scary looking. at least john paul looked like a friendly grandpa. this one looks like he came out of the latest exorcist movie (playing the demon that needs to be exorcised..)
April 27, 2006 at · Filed under mobile, politics
the wsj had a story today of a preemptive move by Cingular and Verizon Wireless to prevent the FCC from starting to regulate mobile content. so in order to stop the regulator from getting involved, they came up with their own set of rules, which seem much more restrictive than what is applied to network television and broadcast radio.
Both carriers have draft policies that go into what types of content is decent enough to be accessible to their subscribers. they also list words/phrases that can not be used in ringtones. for example, according to Cingular’s new policy a ringtone can not include the following words (partial list…):
Ass — Balls — BJ — Breasts
Condom — Corn-hole — Fart — Fornicate
Fudge packing — Insemination — Laid — Lesbian
Masturbate — Naked — Nipples — Nutsack
Orgasm — Pee pee — Penis — Piss
Porn — Puberty — Ruby red bag — Scrotum
Semen — Sex — Shit — Sit on my face
Sixty-nine — Smegma — Teabagging — Testicles
Uncircumcised — Uterus
Verizon Wireless had an even more exhaustive list (with many terms i did not understand..)
it must have been interesting sitting in these meetings and debating whether to allow users to hear a ringtone that has words like “camel jockey” or “spank the monkey”. there must have been heated debates on the merits of each phrase.. now that’s the type of brainstorming i’d like to take part in. they probably brought in teenagers as experts on the subject matter, to make sure something like “poontang” does not escape their blacklist.
they go into further detail, defining what type of images may be displayed (”no nipple, no nipple covers, no nipple shadow…” - it seems they really investigated the nipple issue in this post wardrobe-malfunction world), what could be included in the name of the images (no “Bootylicious”), what names for ringtones (no “Grandma pregnant with uncle” ??), what type of video content (i thought the quote from the title of the post is great).
it seems like a very tough task, keeping up with all the indecencies around us. and how to cast a wide enough web to catch them all. Verizon Wireless tried to address the challenge by dividing the problematic content into categories such as “Lingerie - Female” and “Medium Short Rear Nude - Female”. For example, in the definition of “Medium Short Rear Nude - Female” it says that the image “can include a full rear view, but not with legs up or apart”.
i think this is INSANE and troubling. probably the best example you can get of why the carriers should not have such a level of control over the network. just to be clear, this is not talking about the content that the carrier publishes, but rather rules that will apply to ANY content provider that wants to offer content to the subscribers of the carrier.
it is also a good example why the most affective form of censorship is self-censorship fueled by fear (e.g. China..). the carriers are taking an ultra conservative approach, just to keep the FCC off their backs.
i think a much more reasonable approach would be to require content providers to notify subscribers accessing their site that it includes explicit content, so they can choose to go somewhere else. that’s it. without going into the details of defining what is decent and what is not, and censoring free speech in the process.
April 24, 2006 at · Filed under internet, politics
i just finished reading the Sunday Times and its feature article Google’s China Problem (and China’s Google Problem).
it is an interesting piece which explains how the Chinese government is censoring the Internet. They basically have a Great Firewall that is enforced on all sites outside China. So anytime a user in China is accessing the Internet beyond the Chinese border it goes through the Firewall (which uses a blacklist as well as a keyword base censorship).
For sites that are ran within China, with local servers the government is making the site operators to sign up for a vague self-censorship policy, that leaves a lot of room for the people running the site to interpert what they should and should not censor. the penalties for not enforcing the policy can be harsh, and arbitrary.
it sounds a bit liberal. using a vague policy. but it is the other way around. by leaving it vague and letting the companies police themselves, the government is instilling fear. you never know whether you crossed the line, so you’re always in panic and you will probably take an even more extreme position, censoring even stuff that would have been ok with the government.
this is a big challenge for the foreign companies. and the major portals have taken different stands on the issue. it seems Yahoo! is the worst. complying readily with the censorship, and giving users’ information to the government (which in the past year lead to 2 arrests of journalists/bloggers).
Microsoft is taking the same approach as Yahoo!, but to date has not been involved in providing users information (i assume they were not asked..).
Google has launch google.cn, which is a censored version of google.com, but is not offering gmail, gtalk and blogger, in order to not be in a position where they may be required to give away users information, or participate in active users censorship. whenever they censor search results they inform the user that the search results have been edited to comply with chinese laws.
the latest news are regarding Skype (which has partnered with Tom.com to offer skype in china). and a weekend report by the Financial Times suggests that Skype is censoring the text messages sent on their system.
in my opinion Google took the most honorable approach. it avoided getting into the business of offering services, which may put them in a position that they will be required to cooperate with the government in issues that may lead to arrests, and it provides a disclaimer, which is in my opinion is very important, since it basically tells the user “the government does not want you to see this stuff”.
the US Congress actually called Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Cisco to testify in Washington about their Chinese policies. i watched some of the hearing at the time (a couple of months ago), and typical to these type of hearing the congressmen where more interested in sounding smart and getting quoted in the papers, than in the real issue. so they resort to superficial arguments that means nothing.
i am still reading the “clash of civilzations” (i am taking my time with it), and it talks about the rise of Asia and China specifically, and about issues such as modernization, democratization and westernization (too much “zation” for a sentence..). it is my belief that the Internet will have a profound effect on China, and that the next generation of the growing middle class and the leadership will be very different thanks to the Internet.
« Previous entries
