Mobile porn filters 'censorship'

15 May 2012 Last updated at 14:45 Pornography filters come as standard on many mobile phones Pornography filters on mobile phones are "censoring" normal web content, according to the Open Rights Group.

Its report found that 60 websites were incorrectly blocked by mobile filters designed to prevent children viewing adult content.

The affected sites included political commentaries, personal blogs and community websites.

The government is considering whether to apply similar blocks to fixed-line broadband services.

Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group, author of the report, said the study proved such tools were ineffective.

Automatic block

"Child protection filters can actually affect many more users than intended and block many more sites than they should. These blunt blocks effectively add up to a system of censorship across UK networks," he said.

In a response published on the ORG website, Hamish MacLeod, chairman of the Mobile Broadband Group, denied this.

"Even allowing for the ORG missing a few, 60 misclassified websites does not amount to anything that could reasonably be described as 'censorship', particularly when mobile operators are happy to remove the filters when customers show they are over 18 and will re-classify websites when misclassifications are pointed out to them," he said.

"This is how the small handful of websites that get referred to mobile operators each year are already dealt with," he added.

MPs campaigning

In 2004, the UK's mobile operators, under the auspices of the Mobile Broadband Group, published a code of practice about how to offer a safe browsing experience for children.

At that time, few children accessed the internet via mobiles.

The result was that filters were automatically put on all pay-as-you-go handsets, regardless of the age of the user. In order to remove the filters, users needed either to ring up customer services or go into a mobile shop with proof of age. With its contract phones, Orange and Three customers need to ask if they want filters put on the handsets.

A group of MPs led by Conservative Claire Perry is campaigning to introduce similar filters to fixed line broadband services.

Mr Bradwell called on the government to reject automatic network filtering and instead give parents the option of whether they want such filters turned on.

"Default-on blocks can have significant harmful and unintended consequences for everybody's access to information," he said.

View the original article here

Read More

The mobile phone patent punch-up

23 October 2011 Last updated at 16:31 GMT By Leo Kelion Business reporter Google came to HTC's aid in its patent disputes with Apple The patent system was created to spur on innovation. But over recent years it has sparked an arms war between some of the world's leading mobile phone companies.

The likes of Apple and Microsoft do not only sue their rivals to protect their own inventions, but go on to buy third party patents to build up their weapon stockpile.

What is more, they appear increasingly willing to litigate.

The number of handset patent infringement filings to the US courts grew from 24 cases in 2006, to 84 cases in 2010, according to Lex Machina, an intellectual property litigation data provider.

It expects that number to grow to 97 cases this year, reflecting more than a four-fold rise in the space of half a decade.

"Filings in this litigation space appeared to have hit a plateau this summer, but are now strongly back on the rise," says Lex Machina's chief executive, Josh Becker.

Accelerated innovation

Part of the problem is the speed at which the industry is evolving.

The US patent system offers inventors a limited monopoly on new ideas lasting twenty years from when they are filed. However, mobile phone users expect giant leaps in progress over a much shorter time span.

Continue reading the main story

We all lose when the central competitive arena switches from serving customers to winning at high-stakes litigation”

End Quote Prof Kevin Werbach Pennsylvania University As the devices transform into music players, cameras, internet browsers and beyond, they involve an increasing amount of intellectual property.

There are now potentially more than 250,000 active patents relevant to a single smartphone, according to RPX, a San Francisco based patent aggregator and licensor.

"The devices we used 10 years ago to make voice calls have become hand-held computers incorporating a vast array of software and hardware, which increases the breadth of patent exposure," said RPX's chief executive, John Amster.

"And this problem increases with the capabilities of these devices to do new things.

The lawyers become involved when a company either doesn't want to share its advances, or wants to be paid a fee for their use. Some experts believe this is now becoming a default tactic.

Continue reading the main story

Lawsuits between major mobile handset makers. Click on the names to see who is suing whom

"For some time, the threat of mutually assured destruction among the major technology players such as IBM and Microsoft limited the outbreak of patent warfare," says Kevin Werbach, associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

"Today however, especially in the mobile market, asymmetric threats are widespread. There may be a few local winners in the mobile patent wars, but we all lose when the central competitive arena switches from serving customers to winning at high-stakes litigation."

Keeping track of the tangled web of claims and counter claims is becoming a complex task in itself.

Microsoft is suing handset maker Motorola Mobility over its use of video coding and other patents, but Motorola is counter suing over Microsoft's implementation of email, instant messaging and Wi-fi.

Continue reading the main story

When you get two technology giants battling each other, they will always ensure there is no sign of weakness”

End Quote Florian Mueller FOSS Patents Motorola is being taken over by Google, which is being sued by Oracle over its use of the Java programming language in its Android operating system.

Google also intervened in HTC's legal fights against Apple, selling some of its patents to the Taiwanese handset maker. HTC claims Apple violates its power management technology and other innovations, while Apple challenges the way HTC uses touch screens and gesture recognition.

Meanwhile, Apple has used patent and design-related rights lawsuits to prevent Samsung Electronics from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in Australia and Germany. The South Korean firm has retaliated trying to ban iPhone sales in Japan and Australia.

LG, Sony, Ericsson, Kodak and Nokia have also been active in the courts.

Samsung's Tab 10.1 is at the centre of a legal dispute with Apple Litigation contagion

Florian Mueller keeps track of developments at his blog, Foss Patents, and was recently commissioned by Microsoft to study certain types of patent litigation.

"When you get two technology giants battling each other, they will always ensure there is no sign of weakness," he says.

"So you will see one firm counter-suing against the other, even if their claim is of dubious merit, to make sure they don't go down without a fight."

"Litigants look for jurisdictions that they believe are favourable to their interests, which can give them a quick win... as a result the disputes spread geographically."

Continue reading the main story

We don't allow others to... get a free ride on the back of our innovation”

End Quote Louise Pentland Chief legal officer, Nokia However, Nokia stresses decisions to take legal action are not taken lightly.

The Finnish phone maker recently settled a patent lawsuit with Apple after the US firm agreed to pay a one-off charge and ongoing royalties.

"Our industry requires significant R&D. Nokia alone has invested around 45bn euros ($61.8bn, £39.4bn) in the past two decades," the firm's chief legal officer, Louise Pentland, told the BBC.

"Companies which use the resulting inventions must have permission and compensate those who took the risks and invested to create them."

"So, though litigation is not Nokia's preferred option, we don't allow others to use our intellectual property without authorisation or get a free ride on the back of our innovation," says Ms Pentland.

Legal logic

While Nokia tackled Apple head-on, the iPhone maker and Microsoft are litigating against handset makers using Google's Android system, rather than the search giant itself.

Google does not charge for the software, but instead relies on its partners' devices driving users to its various search services. The firm's latest results show its mobile advertising business is generating revenue at rate of $2.5bn a year, so giving away Android for "free" makes financial sense.

However that creates a major problem for its rivals.

Microsoft's business model relies on handset makers paying for the right to use its Windows Phone 7 system. Apple has to price in the development costs of its iOS system when selling its iPhones.

Microsoft's solution seems to be to force Android manufacturers to pay it a royalty if they use Google's software. At least that was the outcome of patent talks with HTC in 2010 and Samsung last month.

The terms have never been disclosed, but Citigroup analyst, Walter Pritchard, believes HTC and Samsung pay Microsoft between $1-5 for each Android handset sold.

"I think with approximately 50% of Android handsets covered by royalty arrangements, they will continue to pursue the same course of legal action... for the remaining smaller Android players," Mr Pritchard says.

By contrast, Apple seems more intent on keeping its innovations proprietary.

"We spend a lot of time and money and resource on coming up with incredible innovation and we don't like it when someone else takes those," said Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, after the firm released its most recent results.

He declined to elaborate further.

However, a recent court filing by one of Apple's lawyers revealed it could be willing to license Samsung some of its "lower-level patents", but in return Samsung would need to agree to "cease copying the features and functionality" of Apple's products.

Apple has agreed to pay royalty fees to Nokia, but has not disclosed the amounts involved Patent price inflation

As patent attacks become more common place, companies are stocking up on ammunition.

In December 2010, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and the data specialist EMC spent $450m on 882 patents, and patent applications, belonging to Novell, an ailing infrastructure software provider.

That sum was then dwarfed by the $4.5bn paid in July for a 6,000 strong patent portfolio belonging to bankrupt telecoms manufacturer, Nortel. Microsoft and Apple shared the library with Blackberry maker, Research in Motion, and three others.

Then, in September, Google revealed plans to buy Motorola Mobility, and its 24,500 patent library, for $12.5bn.

Notably, the deal was secured one month after Google's Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond, wrote a blog titled "When patents attack".

"Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android," he said.

Continue reading the main story

We're in a situation now of patent poker where the deck has been redealt and everyone has a new hand”

End Quote Ben Wood CCS Insight "Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices - and fewer choices for their next phone."

Although vast sums are involved, experts say it could prove cost-effective if the acquisitions encourage cross-licensing deals under which firms swap permission to use each others' inventions.

"We're in a situation now of patent poker where the deck has been redealt and everyone has a new hand, and all the patent lawyers are saying we need to review our positions," says Ben Wood, chief of research at mobile analysts CCS Insight.

"I would like to think this might result in renewed sanity and a realisation that trying to kill each other in court isn't to the greater good of the industry."

However others are less optimistic.

"As long as major companies feel they need to shore up their patent portfolios, we'll continue to see patents valued as defensive assets in a total war, rather than based on their potential for value creation," says Professor Werbach.

"While in the short run Nortel's creditors and Motorola's shareholders may have benefitted from patent price inflation, the overall impact will be significant market distortion."

On Tuesday, we will look at the role of so-called patent trolls in the mobile patent wars, and whether fair licensing rules can boost the industry.

View the original article here

Read More

Mobile firms vs the patent trolls

24 October 2011 Last updated at 22:46 GMT By Leo Kelion Technology reporter A recent study claimed "patent trolls" cost industry billions of dollars a year Patent litigation among the world's leading mobile phone companies is on the rise.

Barely a week goes by without a development, whether it is Apple and Samsung trying to prevent each others' products from going on sale, or Microsoft forcing another handset maker to pay it a licence fee for the alleged use of its technologies in Google's Android software.

However the legal action is not limited to the big brand names.

Experts also point to a rise in activity of so-called patent trolls - a derogatory name given to organisations that aggressively defend patent libraries without releasing products of their own.

This, the second of two reports into the patent wars, starts by exploring their role.

Unsurprisingly, litigants try to avoid being associated with Scandinavian folkloric monsters wherever possible.

So the industry uses the term "non-practicing entity" to refer to organisations that own and license patents without producing goods of their own.

One of the best known is Intellectual Ventures, which has a library of more than 35,000 patents.

Set up by a former Microsoft executive, Nathan Myhrvold, it recently revealed it has earned over $2 billion through licensing its portfolio to others since 2000.

Like the phone makers it is willing to take legal action to protect its assets.

Earlier this month it sued Motorola Mobility, accusing the handset maker of using its technology to perform updates, file transfers and other functions on its Android phones.

Intellectual Ventures declined to contribute to this report, but previously referred to the case saying: "We will not tolerate ongoing infringement of our patents to the detriment of our current customers and our business."

Expensive Continue reading the main story

Some manufacturers hold back some patents so they have a weapon to deploy against competitors”

End Quote Jonathan Radcliffe Mayer Brown International A recent study, called "The private and social costs of patent trolls" by Boston University law professor, James Bessen, suggests such cases are not uncommon.

He found NPEs initiated more than 2,600 lawsuits against US companies in 2010, more than five times the number than were filed in 2004.

Based on the resulting damage to the defendants' stock prices, he estimates the actions cost them more than $83bn a year over the last four years.

You might think that would act as an incentive for the technology giants to license patents from their inventors, rather than risk court action.

However, Professor Bessen says the reverse is true because successful claims are often the result of "inadvertent" infringements.

Since companies are having to put aside money to cover these lawsuits, he claims they then have less cash to pay for third party innovations.

"The defendants in these lawsuits are firms that already invest a lot in innovation," Professor Bessen said.

"Their losses make it more expensive for them to continue to do so and it also makes them less willing to license new technologies from small inventors."

Fight back

The rise of the NPEs has led to creation of a new type of business, which describes itself a "defensive patent aggregator".

Apple used the FRAND defence to prevent Samsung from banning sales of its iPhone in the Netherlands

One of the first examples is a company called RPX. It was co-founded three years ago by John Amster, an ex-employee of Intellectual Ventures.

Like NPEs, RPX owns a patent library which it licenses out. But it markets its service to others as protection against legal disputes, vowing never to launch a patent lawsuit of its own.

For an annual fee its clients are offered use of RPX's portfolio to help them countersue or settle third party claims. The firm then reinvests part of its earnings to further extend its patent collection.

The service appears to be popular. The firm's prospectus says its clients include Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Nokia and Google.

"The high transaction costs associated with NPE litigation are a tax on the tech industry," Mr Amster told the BBC.

"Today, nearly 50 cents of every dollar spent does not make it to the patent owner."

RPX's fees may help save its clients money in the long run, but it all adds to the costs of the patent wars.

The FRAND defence

Another way companies can limit their costs is to claim the technology involved is essential to an industry standard.

When a new technology - such as JPEG format photographs, or the GSM telephone network - is created, industry player agree to license related patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Continue reading the main story

I worry about the overhead that large players will have to spend in defensive patent manoeuvres”

End Quote Kevin Werbach Pennsylvania University This means the patent owner's fee cannot be excessive and it is not allowed to discriminate who gets to use the innovation

The idea is to ensure different companies' products can communicate and share data formats with each other.

"Consumers benefit from this because standards promote interoperability of products and processes, as well as encouraging 'intra-standard' rivalry between multiple manufacturers who each want to be the best in that field, and beat the others," said Jonathan Radcliffe, a London-based partner at the law firm Mayer Brown.

Apple used the FRAND defence against Samsung in the Netherlands earlier this month when a Dutch court ruled that the South Korean firm's 3G patents were part of essential standards, and could not be used to ban iPhone sales.

However, enforcing FRAND standards opens the door to another set of potential abuses.

Companies may be tempted to over-declare their number of FRAND-type patents in order to attract extra fees. The more patents they declare as essential to a standard, the larger the number of license charges they can potentially claim.

Conversely, firms may prove coy at the declaration stage.

Mr Radcliffe said that in cases where the standard setting organisation fails to issue clear rules "some participants might be tempted to hold back some patents so they have a weapon to deploy against competitors to keep them off the market and/or to force a significantly higher payment".

Collateral damage

In September President Obama signed into law a bill reforming the US patent system. It is due to come into effect in March 2013.

The new rules allow businesses to examine newly granted patents and challenge the decision to grant them within a nine month window, potentially heading off the prospect of court action.

It also places new limits on NPEs, preventing them from launching infringement claims against multiple targets unless there is evidence of collusion. The new principle of "one defendant-one lawsuit" should mean they sue fewer firms.

However, other proposals to restrict the freedom to file lawsuits and limit damages awards were abandoned.

"It makes some useful technical changes, but does nothing to address the core problems," says Kevin Werbach, associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

"I worry about the overhead that large players will have to spend in defensive patent manoeuvres, and the innovative start-ups that will never get off the ground because of threats from patent holders."

It looks like the patent wars, and their fallout, are set to spread.

View the original article here

Read More

Apple's Lion makes a move toward mobile

Apple says Lion, the newest version of its Mac operating system, has 250 new features.Apple's Mac OS X Lion released on Wednesday
The new operating system for Macs adopts features from mobile devices
New system has 250 new features, Apple says

(CNN) -- Lion, the latest version of Apple's operating software for its Mac computers, was released to the public on Wednesday. It's an update that continues to blur the line between software on mobile devices and desktop computers.

Marking the eighth major release of new software for Apple computers, Mac OS X Lion offers 250 new features, according to the company.

With multi-touch gesturing, full-screen app display and access to the Mac App Store built directly into the software, the system was clearly designed to make working on a Mac more similar to working on an iPad.

"Lion is the best version of OS X yet, and we're thrilled that users around the world can download it starting today," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, said in a written statement.

"Lion makes upgrading a Mac easier than ever before; just launch the Mac App Store, buy Lion with your iTunes account, and the download and install process will begin automatically."

Walt Mossberg of All Things Digital called Lion Apple's "most radical new MacIntosh operating system in years," calling it a "giant step in the merger of the personal computer and post-PC devices like tablets and smartphones."

The new system, however, does not run iPhone or iPad apps (at least, not yet) and it does run Adobe Flash -- something Steve Jobs and company have summarily banished from their mobile devices.

Its touch features use a touchpad, making them similar, but not exactly the same, as what iPhone and iPad users may be used to on their touchscreens.

Mossberg said he likes the system, but warned that new users may suffer during their transition.

"Switching to Lion will require a major adjustment even for veteran Mac users, though it will be easier for those who use iPhones or iPads," he wrote. "Lion will significantly increase the learning curve for Windows users switching to the Mac."

Brian X. Chen of Wired wrote that "some of Lion's iOS-like features scale up very well, while others behave very poorly in a desktop environment."

He found the software's iPad-like scrolling feature distracting and dizzying (he eventually disabled it) but said he enjoyed the system's app-opening full-screen mode and praised new sharing and auto-save functions.

Mac OS X Lion is available as a $29.99 upgrade for people with the latest version of the Snow Leopard operating system. It will be available at Apple Stores in August for $69.99.

Lion is the latest in a long line of cat-named operating systems rolled out by Apple for its computers. Past versions have included Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Whether the king of the jungle marks the last version of feline-named software remains to be seen -- but we're still holding out hope for Jaguarundi.

View the original article here

Read More

Apple's Lion makes a move toward mobile

Apple says Lion, the newest version of its Mac operating system, has 250 new features.Apple's Mac OS X Lion released on Wednesday
The new operating system for Macs adopts features from mobile devices
New system has 250 new features, Apple says

(CNN) -- Lion, the latest version of Apple's operating software for its Mac computers, was released to the public on Wednesday. It's an update that continues to blur the line between software on mobile devices and desktop computers.

Marking the eighth major release of new software for Apple computers, Mac OS X Lion offers 250 new features, according to the company.

With multi-touch gesturing, full-screen app display and access to the Mac App Store built directly into the software, the system was clearly designed to make working on a Mac more similar to working on an iPad.

"Lion is the best version of OS X yet, and we're thrilled that users around the world can download it starting today," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, said in a written statement.

"Lion makes upgrading a Mac easier than ever before; just launch the Mac App Store, buy Lion with your iTunes account, and the download and install process will begin automatically."

Walt Mossberg of All Things Digital called Lion Apple's "most radical new MacIntosh operating system in years," calling it a "giant step in the merger of the personal computer and post-PC devices like tablets and smartphones."

The new system, however, does not run iPhone or iPad apps (at least, not yet) and it does run Adobe Flash -- something Steve Jobs and company have summarily banished from their mobile devices.

Its touch features use a touchpad, making them similar, but not exactly the same, as what iPhone and iPad users may be used to on their touchscreens.

Mossberg said he likes the system, but warned that new users may suffer during their transition.

"Switching to Lion will require a major adjustment even for veteran Mac users, though it will be easier for those who use iPhones or iPads," he wrote. "Lion will significantly increase the learning curve for Windows users switching to the Mac."

Brian X. Chen of Wired wrote that "some of Lion's iOS-like features scale up very well, while others behave very poorly in a desktop environment."

He found the software's iPad-like scrolling feature distracting and dizzying (he eventually disabled it) but said he enjoyed the system's app-opening full-screen mode and praised new sharing and auto-save functions.

Mac OS X Lion is available as a $29.99 upgrade for people with the latest version of the Snow Leopard operating system. It will be available at Apple Stores in August for $69.99.

Lion is the latest in a long line of cat-named operating systems rolled out by Apple for its computers. Past versions have included Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Whether the king of the jungle marks the last version of feline-named software remains to be seen -- but we're still holding out hope for Jaguarundi.

View the original article here

Read More