Trade War

by on June 16, 2008 · 20 comments

Picking up on Braden’s recent post, “Abuse of Power? Competition Commissioner that Pushes ‘Smart Business Decisions,’” it’s no secret that Europe’s software industry is years behind Microsoft, and not surprising the industry is seeking help from politicians in Brussels.

When Kroes, a politician, talks about open standards one must assume she is referring to the European software industry, not to the open source movement generally. Of course, for the moment “the enemy of my enemy [may be] my friend,” as they say.

In her remarks last week Kroes said,

“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

This statement could be read either as an innocent statement of personal opinion, or more like an informal, unofficial statement of official policy with plausible deniability. I suspect it is the latter, and that if you are a European bureaucrat or business leader you now understand what is expected of you as far as your future software procurement is concerned.

Why would Kroes need to be opaque? Because there are both structural (e.g., excessive tariffs, unreasonable licensing terms, etc.) and nonstructural trade violations (e.g., certain winks and nods) which are actionable. And because two or more can play this game.

A good reason for governments to not encourage boycotts of foreign goods is because foreign governments can do the same thing. That can lead to trade war, in which your efforts to protect one of your small, insignificant struggling industries may result in foreign retaliation against your most successful exporters.

Trade wars don’t always have serious repercussions, but they have sparked global recessions and many think a trade war sparked the Great Depression.

That’s another good reason why maybe politicians on both sides of the Atlantic ought to leave software procurement decisions up to the marketplace.

ACLU Off Course

by on June 16, 2008 · 17 comments

Alex Harris at OpenMarket.org has a good write-up suggesting that the ACLU has lost its way on the question whether there should be net neutrality regulation. He quotes Barry Steinhardt saying, “No longer is the government the greatest threat to free speech online. The threat is now the companies that run the pipes.”

Barry is a friend and one of the nicest people I know. His dips into hyperbole are quotable wonders to behold – at least when they’re in defense of real civil liberties.

Barry, and all my friends at the ACLU, know the power of my blog posts. They no doubt shudder at the thought that I would turn my acid keyboard their way. This time it’s only a gentle chiding, but I say, Fear it! – FEAR THE BLOG POST! – should I lose patience . . . .

Over at Cato@Liberty, I have a post up about how the suspected release of nuclear plans to the A.Q. Khan smuggling network relates to your privacy – and to copyright law.

Privacy laws threaten e-commerce innovation, as Wayne Crews and I argue in an op-ed in yesterday’s San Jose Mercury News:

Politicians have long used corporations as convenient whipping boys, and the technology industry is no exception. Today, tech companies face political attacks over their online privacy policies. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, for instance, recently demanded that Google provide a detailed explanation of how it stores user search queries. The federal government, so eager to safeguard privacy, is itself the worst offender, unwilling to abide by the same stringent opt-in standards that regulations would impose on private firms. The post-Sept. 11 push for compulsory national ID cards, warrantless wiretapping and escalating data retention mandates reveal a government inclined toward violating privacy, not protecting it.

Continue reading →

Cato Unbound today published my reaction to Rasmus Fleisher’s lead essay on the future of copyright. My essay, titled Towards a Copyriot Act—and Away from it, Again, describes “another future for copyright, one in which lawmakers impose crushing penalties to discourage rampant infringement.” It begins by asking readers to put themselves in the shoes of a Hollwood executive, one who says,

“The police need to fire a few shots over the infringers’ heads. And if the looting continues, they should shoot some of the looters. That may sound severe, but we face a breakdown of civil order. After all, wouldn’t police — or perhaps the National Guard — do the same if mobs threatened to take over Wall Street, Rodeo Drive, or Constitution Avenue? Hollywood deserves the same protection. The time has come to get tough on infringement. The Copyright Act’s mild remedies evidently do not suffice. We need a Copyriot Act!”,
Cato Unbound will next host a series of brief exchanges between Fleischer and we three who responded to his lead essay. Check The Future of Copyright issue for that debate, as well as all of the essays.

[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and Technology Liberation Front.]

I have in past years learned a great deal from reading John Calfee’s book “Fear of Persuasion,” on the consumer benefits of advertising. Now he is writing on drug development in “The Indispensable Industry,”

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-indispensable-industry

He considers, one after another, various proposals to fund drug development using public funds, prizes, or other plans. He writes:

There are two problems with government and nonprofit R&D as a substitute for the traditional for-profit industry. One lies in what the nonprofit sector has not tried to do; the other lies in what it has tried to do. 

We have to remember that no laws, regulations, or traditions have prevented the public research system from inventing the drugs we need if it was really capable of doing that and no one else was. In principle, publicly funded drug research can run all the way from basic research through clinical trials to FDA approval and, if the believers in this approach are correct, it can be conducted at reasonable costs including the inevitable losses from drilling dry holes. 

But let’s look at the record. If we really had a reliably productive government-nonprofit drug development system, we should have seen its fruits by now. Those fruits would have arrived in such areas as the testing of off-patent drugs with great potential and the creation of new drugs where profit incentives are inherently weak because of inadequate intellectual property laws. We should have seen, for example, clinical demonstrations of aspirin for heart disease and cancer much faster than actually occurred…

The piece is well worth reading in its entirety.

WASHINGTON, June 15 – In an effort to increase the data that the Federal Communications Commission has available as it designs broadband policies, on Thursday the FCC ordered broadband providers to provide the agency with more detailed information.

For the past eight years, broadband providers had to provide the FCC with semi-annual information about the number of subscribers that they have in each ZIP code. Now, they will need to provide the number of subscribers in each Census tract, too.

In a last-minute change sought by AT&T and the non-profit group Free Press, the FCC decided to also require broadband carriers to separate out the number of business from residential customers.

Additionally, under a new form created by the broadband data order, carriers must also say how many of their subscribers within each Census tract fit into each of eight separate speed tiers.

Continue reading →

Today I’ve filed several articles on BroadbandCensus.com with extensive coverage from the Broadband Policy Summit last Thursday and Friday. You can also see the links to these stories and others on broadband, at the home page of BroadbandCensus.com.

Check back at BroadbandCensus.com on Monday morning, when I’ll be posting material about the Federal Communications Commission’s Friday decision on broadband data issues.

Comcast-BitTorrent, Wireless Net Neutrality Issues Stir Debate at Broadband Policy Summit

June 14 – Critics and proponents of Network Neutrality squaring off on the topic on Friday agreed that recent actions by both cable and wireless providers had had re-vivified the debate about the topic. read more

Ambassador: U.S. Wireless Policies Emulated by Developing Nations

June 13 – America’s wireless policies continue to be emulated by developing nations, Ambassador David Gross, United States coordinator for international communications and information policy, said Friday. read more

Rep. Cliff Sterns Decries Net Neutrality Rules

June 12 – Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., decried the move to impose Network Neutrality on broadband carriers, speaking at a keynote luncheon address at the Broadband Policy Summit IV here. read more

Questions about Broadband Data Swirl at Broadband Policy Summit

June 12 – Questions about the availability and detail of broadband data featured prominently in presentations and in discussions at Thursday’s sessions of Broadband Policy Summit IV. read more

Via Randy Barnett on Volokh: Larry Lessig has a passionate defense of 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, whose family’s file server had some edgy and ribald files on it, which files could be accessed over the Internet. A lawyer with a grudge against Kozinski is apparently seeking to discredit the judge for the appearance of these files on his server, and there has been some discussion of whether Judge Kozinski should recuse himself from trying an obscenity case. (Though he is a circuit judge, he is sitting by designation as a trial judge.) Eugene Volokh has a similar post.

Kudos to Professor Lessig for his defense of Judge Kozinski, with whom he likely has some ideological differences. He didn’t have to say anything, and it’s to his credit that he did. Volokh is good to his long-time professional colleague.

On the merits, I share the views of both – what I’ve seen of the files are risque and sometimes boorish or gross, but they’re well within the mainstream of naughty Web humor. Were he not a respected judge sitting at an obscenity trial, the presence of these files on a family server would mean less than nothing.

The pair of comments intrigues me, though, because both draw real-world analogies to illustrate the privacy issues at play. Here’s Lessig: Continue reading →

So-called consumer groups may be calling for antitrust action against Google right now, but Intel is actually facing charges.  Unfortunately, antitrust has come to be used by under-performing companies to slow down their competitors in the the hyper-competitive tech sector.  This trend is not only bad news for consumers, but it may put American companies at risk now that foreign governments are getting more interested in the game.  Here’s my recent article on the issue.