February 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Apple to music industry: Nix the DRM
"If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store." So says Apple CEO Steve Jobs in a lengthy message posted on Apple's Web site today.
DRM, of course, stands for digital rights management -- or digital restrictions management, as its stauncher foes would have it. The term refers to a collection of technologies designed to control the way that digital files can be copied or distributed. To its opponents, the way DRM has been deployed by media companies to restrict the use of digital media runs contrary to community interests and individual freedoms.
Jobs mostly avoids the thornier issues of Constitutional law in his missive. Instead, he concentrates on a more practical matter: DRM, he says, simply ain't all it's cracked up to be.
"Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it?" he asks. "The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy."
A variety of DRM systems have appeared over the years. Many of these, including the FairPlay system used by Apple's iTunes store, are proprietary systems controlled by a single vendor. Other systems are more open -- Sun Microsystems has even proposed a completely open source version. Few, if any, have managed to stand up to the efforts of hackers determined to break them. Most recently, tools have surfaced that can break the DRM encryption used on the high-definition HD-DVD and Blu-Ray disc formats, which are only at the very early stages of consumer adoption.
According to Apple's Jobs, the expense and ill will incurred by the music industry's reliance on DRM technology hurts that industry more than it helps. But so far, the media companies aren't playing ball. The only way that Apple can feature major-label music and movies on its iTunes store is by demonstrating a willingness to lock down that content ... insofar as it is possible.
What do you think? Will the combined clout of Apple and the more vocal opponents of DRM be enough to convince the media industry to change its ways? Or is the cat and mouse game between hackers and DRM companies something we're just going to have to live with? Leave us your comments, below.
Posted by Neil McAllister on February 6, 2007 12:41 PM
February 01, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Interoperability key in 'iPhone' talks
The Cisco-Apple iSaga took a conciliatory turn today as the companies returned to the negotiation table to hash out an agreement over the coveted iPhone moniker.
In a tersely worded joint statement, the companies stated "Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability." (The emphasis is mine; more on that in a moment.)
As you may recall, the captain of the iPod Mothership (i.e. Steve Jobs) announced plans [Video] at MacWorld to beam down an iPod cellular phone called the iPhone.
Shortly after, Cisco cried foul and filed a lawsuit against Apple for copyright infringement, arguing that it has held the trademark for the name iPhone since 2000. The company released VOIP phones with that name through its Linksys brand last year.
Cisco argues that Apple was well aware that it owned the iPhone name and noted that prior to Apple announcing its own iPhone, it had approached Cisco on several occasions to discuss usage of the moniker.
In the lawsuit, Cisco asked for Apple to cover its legal fees and to surrender all profits eventually made from iPhone sales. The lawsuit also demanded that Apple eradicate all promotional materials associated with the iPhone.
However, since filing the lawsuit, Cisco CEO John Chambers has said the company is not looking for money; rather, it seeks "interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco product," according to bizjournals.com.
Interoperability, of course, is the operative word here; you may recall, it was part of Cisco and Apple's carefully worded press release. While all the hype about the iPhone has drawn attention to Cisco's Linksys-branded version (a product I'd wager few people had been aware of prior to the skirmish with Apple), the promise of having compatibility with Apple's oh-so-juicy end-user iBlank line is potentially more lucrative to Cisco than simply having Apple's iPhone disappear (or be renamed) all together.
Specifically, as noted by Stephen Lawson of the IDG News Service:
According to published reports, Cisco would have been willing to license the iPhone name in exchange for Apple making the handset interoperate smoothly with Cisco's products. Linksys is the biggest seller of consumer Wi-Fi access points and is expanding its home product line into the voice and entertainment realms. Apple's iPhone is equipped with Wi-Fi and includes audio, photo, and video player software.
Posted by Ted Samson on February 1, 2007 11:48 AM
January 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Apple, Google, and Napster hit with lawsuits
Apple, Google, and Napster don't often show up in the same sentence, let alone the same hedline, so I was surprised to see the AP reporting that all three are being sued by a company called Intertainer for copyright infringement.
"The patent in question, filed in 2001 and granted in 2005, outlines the business model for offering video content from various providers to consumers over the TV and the Internet, Intertainer Inc. said in its lawsuit," according to AP.
Apple sells movies via iTunes. Google offers videos both on Google Video and through YouTube. Napster, known for its music-download service, has talked about offering video downloads.
Founded in 1996, Intertainer proclaims itself the pioneer VOD (video on demand) company on its Web site.
The company claims it was driven out of business by AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal and Sony, the companies it sued back in 2002 for " conspiracy to fix prices in the digital distribution of entertainment and restraint of trade."
Last March 2006, the defendants -- Sony, Time Warner, NBC Universal, and Movielink -- reached an out of court settlement with Intertainer "that resolved the antitrust lawsuit to the satisfaction of all parties," according to Intertainer.
We'll report more as we get the info. Stay tuned.
Posted by Ted Samson on January 3, 2007 02:32 PM
December 05, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Investors bail on SCO after gutting
Investors have fled SCO Group's stock after a federal judge gutted its lawsuit against IBM, reports Forbes.com.
Last Thursday, the judge said SCO had provided no evidence to support its claim that IBM took code from Unix, which SCO claims to have some copyrights, and added it to Linux, Forbes.com reports.
The Linux distro firms must be cheering, and Microsoft is kind of over the whole dirty mess in its own way with its deal with Novell to embrace Linux, but is this long-running land grab at all over? Has it run its legal course now?
Posted by Mike Barton on December 5, 2006 06:15 AM
August 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Is the general public and press more blasé about companies mishandling the personal data of employees than it is about the government mishandling that of its citizens?
Fueling this perhaps loaded question is my observation that the news about a data leak at Chevron went widely unreported, as far as I can tell.
Now, I wasn't expecting Google news to be brimming with thousands of articles, nor did I envision citizens gathering torches and pitchforks and storming the Chevron headquarters. But the relative silence I've observed left me curious.
Consider, after all, the widespread coverage of the recent data leaks by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. Granted, the VA has suffered more than one embarrassing data leak thus far, forcing it into the public spotlight. Arguably, though, that's been a good thing in that it has resulted in action: the VA's information security officer stepped down. The department has pledged to implement encryption technology. And Unisys, the company responsible for VA's latest lost laptop, is offering a $50,000 reward for its return.
Do public multi-national corporations get a reprieve for substandard security that potentially puts its employees at risk of identity theft? How about smaller chain stores like Williams Sonoma, which reportedly suffered a leak of its own?
Notably, with Chevron, Williams Sonoma, and at least in the VA's most recent leak, it was partners that had really dropped the ball. In Chevron's case, the stolen laptop was in the care of an independent public accounting firm auditing the company's employee savings, health and disability plans. For the VA, someone at the aforementioned Unisys erred. And for Williams Sonoma, a Deloitte & Touche employee, who was performing an audit of the furnishings chain, had the laptop stolen from his apartment.
On the one hand, I can understand why there's more public concern over the VA's data leaks. After all, we're supposed to entrust the government to protect us, and we pay for that protection with tax dollars. Plus, holes in government security seem more likely to affect you and me than does a security breach at some company we don't run or work at.
But these kinds of leaks represent a growing trend in the business world. The Ponemon Institute and Vontu have come out with a study pointing out that very fact. As these breaches become more pervasive, the chances of one eventually affecting you or me increases. And that should concern you whether you're the CEO of the company who has to field questions from the press and disgruntled stockholders after your organization is sued by a group of employees whose personal data was swiped; whether you're the head of your company's IT security and you're given walking papers for letting personal data fall into the hands of criminals; or whether you're the VP of sales, or assistant marketing director, or just some poor sucker who got your personal data ripped off.
I think it's inevitable that we'll soon see hefty lawsuit settlements against companies that have negligently exposed their employees SSNs and other personal information. I also think that, eventually, the government is going to intervene and pass some legislation that will pile some hefty fines on companies that don't meet certain standards insofar as guarding that kind of information, a la HIPAA for the medical industry.
In the meantime, though, companies (and governmental agencies) need to get on the ball. I'm talking about stricter policies restricting what kind of data employees can carry around on laptops -- tied to serious consequences for those who don't comply. I'm talking about implementing technology like encryption, which may not be a simple cure-all, but that's a step in the right direction. And I am talking about scrutinizing those SLAs with your partner companies, like Unisys and Deloitte & Touche, and being certain they're taking measures to keep your company out of hot water -- and blog posts like this one.
Posted by Ted Samson on August 17, 2006 11:08 AM
May 13, 2005 | Comments: (0)
Sun Microsystems, which lost a lawsuit by Kodak over patents for Java last year, is not exactly patent-free itself.
While waiting in the lobby in one of the company's buildings in Menlo Park, Calif. this week, my attention was drawn to a wall filled with little plaques celebrating the awarding of patents to Sun employees.
But don't be fooled into thinking Sun is a big supporter of current patent laws.
"Fundamentally, we certainly acknowledge that the entire patent system is very broken. At some level, it doesn't matter because the game is what the game is and you either play it or you get killed," Sun Vice President James Gosling said.
The issue of patents for software has been a hot one lately. Industry dignitaries have debated the merits and risks of awarding patents for software technology that might unknowingly be used without permission somewhere else, placing the user at risk of lawsuits.
Gosling said he is not aware of Sun ever suing anyone over patents. But Sun also was sued years ago over a patent pertaining to RISC technology and lost, he said. "It seemed like a really obvious patent but we lost," Gosling said.
There has been a lot of talk about patent reform. But for now, enterprises and technology companies have to be concerned about whether they are using software that may be subject to licensing fees because of some arcane patent.
Posted by Paul Krill on May 13, 2005 12:22 PM
May 02, 2005 | Comments: (0)
Intellectual property checker advances
Palamida is looking to capitalize on what it perceives to be a new opportunity - ensuring integrity of intellectual property. The company has hired industry veteran Mark Tolliver, formerly of Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard, as CEO and president.
Palamida IP Amplifier 3.0, available today, scans code to determine if any third party software might be in the user's software product. The Palamida offering checks a customer's code against a database of more than 38 million open source files and is intended to help users comply with any licensing obligations that may arise.
"The software provides them with on-demand information on exactly what's going on in their code base at any given time," said Theresa Friday, a founder of Palamida.
Priced on a subscription basis, IP Amplifier 3.0 costs from $50,000 to $250,000 per year.
Tolliver left Sun after the company reorganized last year. He was chief marketing and strategy officer at Sun. "Just this month, after looking at any number of opportunities, I got excited and interested in Palamida and decided to jump in as CEO," Tolliver.
Given the high profile of the intellectual property issue these days, Palamida could have an interesting opportunity on its hands. The company may find itself pretty busy.
Posted by Paul Krill on May 2, 2005 12:48 PM
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Remote Access: Maintain Security and Decrease the Burden on IT
- Beyond AntiVirus: Symantec Endpoint Protection
- What Every Enterprise Needs to Know About VDI
- Solution for Open Virtualization Provides Server Consolidation
- Help Simplify Virtualization
- A Guide to Rich Internet Application (RIA) Security
