BC Law IPTF Blog

c|net compares PayPal with Google Checkout.

It appears from the review that Google Checkout replicates some of the idealized functionality of MS’s Passport: a “wallet” that protects and stores your credit card and contact information. Call it, even, a “1-Click” for the Internet. (I admit I’m biased towards the beauty of “1-Click” because I helped design the box.)

This is kind of neat because Google generally is kind of neat. But the facts that (1) it’s banned from eBay, (2) has not rolled out for international purchases, and (3) doesn’t draw from a bank account, just credit cards, might be the two legs and a foot, respectively, that when missing make their stool un-sittable.

Business development-wise, it’s also an up-hill-battle marketing model. Because eBay bought PayPal, the functionality automatically rolled out to the advantage of eBay’s huge user base. Google Checkout, on the other hand, has to work business by business to build acceptance of their payment–and if it’s not accepted in the mainstream, what’s the advantage for the business?

Too many payment options confuse the consumer. Unless Google somehow offers cash incentives, like the way Discover entered into the MasterCard, Visa, American Express oligopoly.

Google hits home-runs when it’s swinging at the first pitch. But when it’s behind the curve, it’s performance is less than average.

Once you’ve determined that the software you’re exporting is ECCN 5D002 (broadly, that it is not mass-market and then in any way uses encryption technology), then you need to determine whether the country you are exporting to requires authorization.

Under Part 774 Supp. 1(C)(D) 5D002, you’ll see that 5D002 encryption falls under the NS (National Security) and AT (Anti-Terrorism) reasons for control. Underneath that one sentence, you’ll see “Control(s)” and accompanying “Country Charts.” Here, we have to look at our Country Chart for control under NS column 1 and AT column 1.

The Country Chart is found in Part 738 Supp. 1. There, for example, if you’re exporting to Mongolia, you’ll see that authorization is required because there’s an X under NS column 1. Even though there’s no X under AT column 1, you still need to look into authorization.

As of now, Canada is the only country that is completely free and clear for exporting 5D002. Also note that you do not need authorization if you’re exporting to foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations. Lastly, make sure to check Part 740 Supp. 3 to see if there is a Part 740.17(a) exception to your country destination. This exception also applies to foreign subsidiaries of Canadian and Part 740 Supp. 3 countries.

If you are exporting software that uses encryption outside of the US, to a company that is not a subsidiary of a US company, then you generally need your product to undergo review by the Bureau of Industry and Security (”BIS”). BIS references the Export Administration Regulations (”EAR”), and more specifically the Commerce Control List, to see if your software needs authorization for export.

If your software has the characteristics, or performs or simulates the functions of a product designed or modified to use encryption beyond 56-bits (for a symmetric algorithm, e.g., DES; the requirements are different for other types; see the EAR), then your software may likely be classified as “5D002.” (See the EAR Part 774, Supp. 1, Cat. 5(II)(D).) If you and the government determine your software is 5D002, then you need to be authorized by review.

(more…)

The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. sec. 2533a) requires that certain supplies purchased by the U.S. Dept. of Defense be sourced domestically from start to finish. But what may actually be happening is that essential supplies such as electronics and clothing must be withheld, because of these source restrictions, from much-needed areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

One issue with the Berry Amendment is that it restricts the sources of “specialty metals” to wholly domestic suppliers. A problem with this is that the manufacture of some integrated circuits (”ICs”) deposits trace amounts of titanium, a “specialty metal,” in the component. It is nearly impossible to discover the source of this titanium through the chain of suppliers, and therefore IC suppliers cannot know whether they are Berry-compliant or not.

ICs are everywhere, in nearly every electronic component. And Berry is specific that no exception can be made for electronics and communications equipment in aircraft, missile and space systems, ships, tank-automotive, weapons, and ammunition.

Furthermore, there is the issue where certain foreign countries can source specialty metals from non-US suppliers, defeating the pro-domestic industry intent of Berry. For example, a French manufacturer can source titanium from Russia, but a US manufacturer can only source titanium from a US-based supplier.

The Defense Contract Mgmt. Agency (”DCMA”) issued interim guidance that suppliers may withhold the cost of lowest auditable non-compliant specialty metal part against the cost of the contract. I.e., if a set of non-compliant screws costs $1 and the entire component is $10, then the contract can be sold for $9 each component. But since the titanium in ICs is difficult to audit, the lowest auditable part may be the entire IC.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 includes a section advising flexibile interpretation of the Berry restrictions, but it may take more legislation to ensure that components such as ICs can make it to places such as the Middle East conflict zone.

Ethan Zuckerman writes regarding generativity:

Much of the great creativity we’ve seen on the web has happened on the server side, not the client side. I think some users will move to less flexible devices than conventional PCs, but will contribute to the diversity of the Internet by creating original text, pictures, audio and video - so long as they’re able to create this content and share it online, I’m less worried about whether the devices they use to edit and upload it are arbitrarily programmable or not.

(Regarding Jonathan Zittrain’s recent article on generativity and securing the “grid”–summarized well on a Nicholas Carr blog post.)

I like the idea of streamlining the tools of “generativity” to a low common denominator. Thinking about creating content in a developing world context, an appliance that allows users to take pictures, write captions, and upload them to a blog–aggregated by something like Ethan’s Global Voices–is just enough to get important (if not at least flavorable) ideas and participation online.

And maybe that’s all you need to encourage greater generativity. If you lower the barriers to participation–and also increase the barriers to PC-destruction (see virii and malware)–then we’ll see more voices online. Think of an even more reduced Palm Pilot with a camera and microphone.

I shudder when I say this, but then think of a MySpace that accepts content from these Palm Pilots via e-mail. But then you can have children walking around, taking pictures or video, with audio or text narration, unpacking their daily experiences.

In much fewer words, that’d be dope.

We’re in the process of transferring our old online journal web site to a new one. We had a number of requirements:

1. We want a system where we could easily post HTML versions of our articles.
2. We want the ability for the public to make comments on each article.
3. We want a blog.
4. We want something that someone not-so-technical could inherit and use. I.e., seamless upgrades, requiring little modification.

And that was about it.

(more…)

One method of building a business around open source software is through charging for distribution and consultancy. An example of the first is by not selling the software per se, but selling the CDs. An example of the latter is charging for installation, maintenance, and documentation.

One of my primary interests is IP and technology in developing countries. While many people see that as “bridging the digital divide,” I’m more interested in “low technology.” Stoves, food storage, housing materials, sanitation, etc.

An issue with low technology in developing country contexts is that the cost of the product cannot be a barrier to distribution. If you have an idea, you want the idea, the knowledge, the philosophy of it all to be free–to reach the most people who need it. But then how do you establish a business so that you can make the most impact?

You follow an OSS model. BushProof, with its bio-sand filter is doing such a thing. The basic idea–filter and sanitize water through sand–is ingenious and open to anyone to use. They document and explain the process clearly. They promote community to help others out. All for free.

Then they sell consultancy and ready-made products for easy implementation. I think it’s going to work. It’s smart. It makes sense. It’s open source.

On other hand, think how many lives would go to waste if someone were to patent this technology and/or copyright the source.

From Reuters: Microsoft allows open document format for software.

In response to government pressure for greater inoperability with their office suite, Microsoft will open source translation tools that will allow Microsoft Office to read competitor’s document formats.

This is interesting in light of Massachusett’s recent pushes for adopting OpenOffice due to its interoperability and low cost. Now OpenOffice may only have a cost argument against Microsoft. But with Microsoft’s deep pockets, OpenOffice may also lose the relative-cost war.

The Electronic Freedom Frontier has been fighting for, well, “electronic freedom” for 16 years. One of their most recent cases is a class action lawsuit against AT&T for collaborating with the NSA on illegal wire-tapping and data-mining of personal communications.

From the EFF press release:

The lawsuit alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers’ communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit’s class members.

The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte “Daytona” database of caller information—one of the largest databases in the world. Moreover, by opening its network and databases to wholesale surveillance by the NSA, EFF alleges that AT&T has violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.

The lawsuit also alleges that AT&T continues to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of Americans. EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold AT&T responsible for its illegal collaboration in the government’s domestic spying program, which has violated the law and damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public.

To keep up-to-date with the EFF’s progress on this issue, as well as their other goings-on, subscribe to their newsletter.

Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society blogs about the NSA databases.