Hopefully, you weren't flying United Airlines yesterday. As you may have heard, the company had a massive computer crash, which caused chaos at many airports. These kinds of things aren't new, but this one did seem quite impressive in terms of how much it impacted. Still, what interests me is that the airline sought to deal with no computers by handwriting boarding passes, some of which people started photographing and putting on Twitter.

Moira Forbes got one that at least looked kinda sorta like a normal boarding pass, done on a boarding pass blank: A James Fortune got a similar one that was a bit messier with the handwriting: And, finally, someone going by the name jmeg on Twitter didn't even get a boarding pass blank, but just sheet of paper. A few months ago, I ended up flying on the day that Virgin America chose to "switch over" its computer system. While they warned us a week ahead of time, they still suggested we show up early and noted that getting boarding passes would be more manual. In that case, they had pre-printed them all out before the systems were shut off, and then had to flip through the stack to find the right one. Even that took more time than usual, so I can only imagine the mess of having to do boarding passes by hand.

But what fascinates me about this is how people figure out how to cope when computer systems go down. Every so often we have these fear mongering stories about computer crashes, and we learn about how the Y2K bug could lead to the end of society or some computer hackers could create havoc by attacking key computers. And while there are computers that run some critical systems, even in situations like this -- where the computers are incredibly important -- when they go down it may create a major pain in the ass for some, but it's not the end of the world. People figure out ways to cope and to use alternative systems, such as handwriting boarding passes. It's not perfect, and there were plenty of people who didn't get to fly at all, but it's not like civilization broke down. Computer systems fail, people deal with it, and everyone gets on with their lives.

Every parent wants to encourage their kid's natural interests, but there are a ton of other influences in the lives of little kids -- like toy makers and advertisers. It can be difficult to find purely educational toys that aren't trying to peddle a bunch of other stuff. For parents of little girls, the toy aisles seem particularly loaded with questionable themes. Here are just a few examples.

• Lego Friends is a line of toys aimed at girls that are reinforcing some stereotypes. Lego is trying to expand beyond its traditional customers of little boys, and the company has done a lot of research to try to create a toy that girls want to play with. [url]
• Gwen Thompson is an American Doll introduced in 2009 -- as the world's first "homeless" doll. Gwen was a limited edition doll (sold for $95), and hopefully she isn't living on the streets anymore. [url]
• Chemistry sets have changed a lot over the years (mainly to make them boring safer), and a few of them are now geared exclusively for girls. Some parents are offended by "science kits" that are basically advertisements for cosmetics and perfume, but there are a lot of toys that are simply advertisements for other products.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Like many media properties, we've filed Freedom of Information Act requests to seek out information at both the federal and state levels. The various federal and state freedom of information regulations are important tools for the public, and also for those doing journalism to seek out and report on important information that should be public. Unfortunately, some states like to limit these laws, and Virginia in particular has made its law such that it limits filings to only Virginia residents... or to a very small number of media companies that meet its "exemption" rules. Basically, it will allow freedom of information requests from "traditional newspapers, print magazines or FCC-licensed broadcast media." So if you're an online-only media property and not a Virginia resident, you're out of luck.

A small number of other states also have "citizens only" clauses in their FOI laws, though Delaware's was recently struck down as unconstitutional. However, Virginia is the only state that allows a partial exemption for some media players, but not for others. Even so, a court recently upheld Virginia's law as constitutional. This has created both a circuit split (with different courts in different circuits finding very differently on the general issue of "citizens only" clauses), and an unfair burden on anyone doing online-only reporting and thus not qualifying for the specific exemption in Virginia's law.

As the Supreme Court has been asked to hear an appeal of that case, we've signed onto an amicus brief along with the American Society of News Editors, the Center for Investigative Reporting, Ars Technica, Daily Kos, Grist, Matthew Lee, Muckrock, Automattic and Tumblr, arguing that this is an issue where existing rulings and the arbitrariness of the exemptions in the law have created massive uncertainty for anyone doing investigative reporting. So our filing is asking the Supreme Court to take the case and clarify whether or not Virginia's restrictive law is constitutional. Hopefully, the Court recognizes the problems of the law and makes clear that, in this age when anyone can do reporting, limiting such rules to only citizens or an arbitrary definition of professional media is too restrictive.

The ritualistic "Reddit AMA" has become an important right of passage for lots of interesting people (both famous and not-so-famous). But, there's a pretty clear set of guidelines for how to do one right -- and the first step is to sound like you're a human. That's often difficult for the rich and famous -- and it's doubly true of politicians. Rep. Jared Polis, for example, did a great Reddit AMA. Today, of course, the big news is that President Obama is doing a Reddit AMA -- obviously, the first time that a sitting President (or any US President, I would imagine) has done one. The site has had trouble staying up, but one of the first questions that President Obama chose to answer was about internet freedom, asking "Is Internet Freedom an issue you'd push to add to the Democratic Party's 2012 platform?" The President's answer was quite... political.

Internet freedom is something I know you all care passionately about; I do too. We will fight hard to make sure that the internet remains the open forum for everybody - from those who are expressing an idea to those to want to start a business. And although there will be occasional disagreements on the details of various legislative proposals, I won't stray from that principle - and it will be reflected in the platform.

And while there was originally a there/their typo in the comment (which has since been fixed), the problem with this statement is that it doesn't seem "human." It's a politician's answer, rather than any real commitment. This isn't a surprise, it's just a disappointment. This was a chance to show a real commitment to internet freedom, but instead the answer comes across as wishy-washy. Seems like a missed opportunity.

The US government keeps having setback after setback after setback in its legal fight against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. If the US had its way, all of Dotcom's assets would have been frozen, he would be stuck in jail with no opportunity to be bailed out, and New Zealand would have already rubber stamped extradition papers. But none of that has happened.

The latest is that, against the wishes of the US and the New Zealand governments, the court has granted Dotcom the use of $4.83 million out of the assets that were frozen in order to pay some of his legal expenses (though, not for his US lawyer, Ira Rothken). The order also says that the released funds cannot be used for Dotcom's co-defendants. The ruling, embedded below, is pretty thorough and suggests (yet again) that the US-driven prosecution of Dotcom is mostly focused on trying to railroad him, rather than allow him to mount an adequate defense. He may very well be guilty, but it's pretty shameful that the steps taken by the US and New Zealand governments seem designed to not even give him a chance to properly defend himself. At least the New Zealand court has recognized that's not right, and will allow him access to some funds, with specific limits, so that he can put together his defense.

Mr Dotcom's rights under the NZBORA and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further tip the balance in his favour. The State's contingent interest in the restrained property is of punitive nature and limited to depriving Mr Dotcom of the fruits of his alleged offending. In contrast, Mr Dotcom's access to counsel is supported by his rights to natural justice, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and to consult and instruct a lawyer and to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. It is generally assumed that the right to access defence counsel includes the right to counsel of the defendant's choice....

Looks like we've got something of a repeat of the Dajaz1 insanity, in which the US government seized and censored a website for over a year before giving up and handing the domain back -- though this time it's with Rojadirecta. You may recall the Rojadirecta case, where two domains have been held by the US government on a highly questionable legal theory for over a year and a half -- well, the government just dropped the case, and it appears that the domains will be returned.

The case began when ICE seized two Rojadirecta domains from the Spanish company Puerto 80. As we noted at the time, Puerto 80 had been found legal (twice) in Spain, so it was hard to fathom that there could be "willful" infringement here.

Of course, over time, the situation got even more ridiculous. As with Dajaz1 and other sites, the US Attorneys in charge of the case stalled when the site fought back. In the case of Rojadirecta, Puerto 80 decided to stop waiting and sued the government. From there, something of a comedy of errors by the government ensued, with bizarre and unsupportable claims, and (worst of all) repeated attempts to mix and match different pieces of the law to dance around the fact that there was no legal basis for the seizure and the whole thing was unconstitutional. Each time the feds would present an argument, as you picked it apart, you could see that even they didn't seem to understand the law.

It appears that someone over there finally figured it out. We'd been waiting a while to hear from the court, and the last thing we'd heard was Rojadirecta/Puerto 80 pointing to Judge Posner's recent ruling about how a site embedding clips from elsewhere isn't infringing. Some copyright maximalists insisted that this had nothing to do with Rojadirecta, and that Rojadirecta would still lose... but not everyone agreed.

Today the government filed a "voluntary dismissal" notice of the case against Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com. You can see the short dismissal notice below. What's unfortunate, of course, is that the government might now get away with this blatant censorship and disregard for basic due process, without a court ruling showing that it was an illegal move by the feds. In other words: without punishment, the feds may feel free to do this again. This is now the second (and third) example of the government seizing a domain and censoring it for over a year on a very questionable legal theory -- and when the pressure finally gets to be enough, the government turns tail and runs, giving back the domain with no explanation or apology for blatant censorship. That's unacceptable.

Mark Lemley, who was on the legal team defending Puerto 80, told me:

We're obviously thrilled that after 18 months it looks like we will get the domain names back. I think this is a sign that you can stand up for what's right in copyright law and win.

That's true... but just the fact that they had to fight this for 18 months while the government held their domains raises serious questions about the government's actions here. It's probably not worth it for Puerto 80 to pursue things any further, but it's unfortunate that in both cases where people have fought back against the government's over-aggressive seizures of domain names, the government has tried to wait them out... and then finally admitted by default that it was wrong, and handed back the domains.

I expect that we may see a few more such cases as well. Unfortunately, though, we may not get a clear legal ruling telling the government it can't do this -- meaning that they'll be free to continue to abuse their powers in such a manner going forward.

Update: Added the letter that the DOJ sent with the dismissal notice, suggesting that the MyVidster ruling impacted their thinking...

We've seen all sorts of bizarre defenses of paywalls for newspapers, but I think this latest one might be the strangest. Melanie Coulson, a senior editor at the Ottawa Citizen, which recently added a paywall, makes the argument that paywalls are needed to get newspapers to stop competing for pageviews with crass and tacky attention-grabbing stories and photo galleries:

If a newsroom is working to get a lot of page views, it’s simply a case of posting a lot of photo galleries, and celebrity stories. I can only imagine this is why, last winter, we posted galleries illustrating AquaYoga poses and NHL Cheerleaders.

However, once you’re working to please/increase subscribers, your objectives change.

Mathew Ingram does a nice job debunking this (non-)logic by pointing out that just because you have a paywall, it doesn't mean that newspapers won't still focus on "pageview-based tactics."

The entire basis of Coulson's argument is kind of bizarre. It's basically saying that readers who pay for a paywall do so to save themselves from themselves. You see, if the content is free, then they're drooling idiots who love clicking through photo galleries. But if they pay, then suddenly they're only interested in the latest socially relevant investigative reporting. But there's absolutely nothing to suggest that's true. The lowest common denominator stuff may upset one's sense of what's high level "journalism," but if that's what people are interested in, then it's where some publications are going to head.

The reality is that there appears to be room in the market for that sort of page view whoring content and more thoughtful journalism -- but I don't see how that automatically separates itself out along the lines of who's willing to pay and who isn't. One could just as easily make the argument that a site with a paywall will feel more of a need to post silly photo galleries and attention whoring content... just to convince people to subscribe.

Nothing about having a paywall suddenly makes your audience more erudite and cultured. It just makes your audience smaller.

While we were just discussing an accusation against the TSA for racial profiling (GASP!), did you know that they were also the official state-sponsored fashion and humor police? I mean, who couldn't see these guys adjudicating your local fashion show?

TSA uniforms: like Michael Jackson, but creepier
Image Source. CC BY-SA 2.0

Reader pixelpusher220 writes in about the tale of how one man's shirt got him booted off of a Delta airplane after passing through TSA security, as recounted by Cory Doctrow.

Back in 2007, I designed a shirt for Woot! that featured a screaming eagle clutching an unlaced shoe and a crushed water bottle, surrounded by the motto MOISTURE BOMBS ZOMG TERRORISTS ZOMG GONNA KILL US ALL ZOMG ZOMG ALERT LEVEL BLOODRED RUN RUN TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES. Among the lucky owners of this garment is Arijit "Poop Strong" Guha, who proudly wore it this week as he headed for a Delta flight from Buffalo-Niagara International Airport to his home in Phoenix.

But it was not to be. First, the TSA Delta agents questioned him closely about the shirt, and made him agree to change it, submit to a secondary screening and board last. He complied with these rules, but then he was pulled aside by multiple Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority cops, more TSA, and a Delta official and searched again.

Apparently the new terror plot is to make you laugh so hard your face explodes

It's worth noting that these shirts were designed by Cory Doctrow and sold as part of a charitable program.

Now, I'll restate it again, Arijit had already gone through the TSA screening when he and his wife were then approached by Delta employees at the gate who informed him that he had committed the crime of making other passengers "uncomfortable". When Arijit informed the Delta employees that he was wearing the shirt specifically to mock the security theater we call an airport these days, he was put through another round of screening at the gate by several TSA and local agents and then told that he would be allowed to board. The Delta pilot, catching wind of this, requested Arijit not be allowed to board, because laughter would not be tolerated on his enormous hunk of flying metal. Oh, and they also refused to allow his wife to board the plane too. No reason was apparently given for this, but I'm guessing there may have been some plaid mixing with pin-stripes in her outfit, and the pilot found it to be lacking in fabulousness.

Or maybe there was another reason. According to Arijit, the officer wanted to interrogate him further, saying that Arijit had given a "stupid answer" and "looked foreign":

“Certainly he wasn’t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans,” Arijit writes in part of his snark-filled synopsis. “Fortunately, Mark’s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.”

And yet he still wasn't allowed on the plane. Was it because of his t-shirt? Was it because the motherfucking eagle on it caused concern amongst passengers? Or, as has been previously accused, was it because too many TSA agents find brown-skinned people suspicious and alarming?

Oh, HBO. You want so many people to love you. And they do, shelling out for additional offerings like HBO Go in order to take the shows they love with them on their mobile devices. And what do you do with this love? You crush it. You crush it like a heartless Lothario parting ways with a high-school girlfriend after a quick round under the bleachers, announcing "I'm going to college out of state. Call you sometime," leaving her half-dressed, teary-eyed and a bit dusty.

The issue has been knocking around for awhile, but today, the unfortunate high school girlfriend was Fred Wilson, respected blogger and venture capitalist.

I put the awesome HBO GO app on the family's iPad yesterday and tried to Airplay into our family room TV. I got audio on the TV but not video. I thought I was doing something wrong. So I rebooted everything and tried again. Same thing.

So I did a web search on the topic to see what was going on. Turns out HBO GO has disabled the video on Airplay but not the audio. That's right. They disabled the video but include an Airplay button in the app.

Why would someone do this? Why brick half the service and leave end users scratching their heads and casting about wildly over at the Apple support forums?

The "why" is the usual "why." Or rather, two usual "whys." The first "why" is somewhat of a licensing issue. HBO really doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize its relationship with the studios and cable companies, so it's limited the functionality of the Go app to mobile devices only. HBO wants you to use HBO On Demand if its current slate of programs isn't working for you. I would imagine there's a revenue stream hidden there, but taking advantage of it would mean damaging some valuable relationships. In HBO's view, Go isn't broken because fixing it would break something more valuable.

The second "why" is piracy, or rather, the fear of. From the comment thread at AVC:

Having developed these sort of systems before, I can tell you it's because AirPlay is considered an insecure protocol. It's too easy to capture the AirPlay stream and thus, in theory, create HD copies of the video. That's why they don't do it.

I've found that the cryptographic particularities don't always matter when you're in discussions with the studios. They have a list of approved DRMs and technologies and you're either on the list or you're not. Otherwise, you face at least a 6+ month in depth technical review of the stack.

TL;DR: The studios can be somewhat arbitrary in approving or disproving technologies. Last I heard, AirPlay was not approved.

Even if HBO wanted you to have this freedom (and it's not necessarily clear that it does), it still has to keep the upstream (studios) happy. And if the studios think there's a possibility that the TV you're streaming to is actually some sort of unauthorized recording device (like a VCR made out of hard drives?), it's never going to get the green light.

The next question is this: why put an Airplay button in your app if it's completely (or at least, mostly) unusable? No real answer is available. Perhaps the hope is that at some point the button will work. Or developer cruelty.

The whole situation is clearly ridiculous and highlights just how incestuous all these services (cable companies, movie studios, premium channels) are. HBO can't piss off the up and downstream sides of the equation, so it locks down anything that might be perceived as "leaving money on the table." The combined fear of piracy between these three entities (well, two of them anyway) is likely verging on "unmeasurable." This results in some very arbitrary restrictions created in the name of copy protection.

Caught in the middle is the cheerleader/consumer. HBO Go requires having an active cable account. The cable box (an additional monthly charge) only provides access to HBO On Demand (another additional monthly charge). Then there's HBO Go itself (another additional charge). It's tough to see much more than couch cushion change being left on the table in this situation.

And why do people want to stream HBO Go to their TVs? Because of HBO itself. HBO's On Demand selection is very limited as compared to HBO Go. On top of that, many users seem to feel that HBO Go's interface is better and more easily navigated. So, if it's all paid for, why is this feature bricked?

See above. Piracy fears. Fear of upsetting the balance between the three related parties. But further than that, it's the inability to recognize that users and customers will want to use your products and services in ways you never intended.

To HBO, it's likely inconceivable that someone would want to stream to a device and kick it right back to the TV set where its other content resides. But they do. And they're going to find ways to work around this limitation. When these roadblocks become easily circumvented, rather than realize that these efforts are made to make paid services work the way the customer wants them to, the content providers usually start worrying about their loss of distribution control. This worry leads to less innovation and more disabled features and bogus restrictions.

What they need to be doing (HBO, studios, cable providers) is taking long looks at these complaints and adjusting their offerings to better fit customer expectations. Consider yourself lucky you're still able to monetize nearly every aspect of these services and look to improve your current offerings. Do this often enough and you may learn to anticipate customer wants and needs. If you're looking to keep the food chain happy and trim down on "unauthorized" viewing, your best bet is to get to the "anticipation" point as quickly as you can. 

Next to the MPAA, the main lobbying organization that pushed SOPA was the US Chamber of Commerce. The organization and its laughably inept "Global Intellectual Property Center" are infamous for the fact that they have absolutely no shame in using completely bogus numbers to argue for bad laws that their highest spending backers support. Not surprisingly, the USCoC did not take the loss over SOPA lightly, and it appears that they're gearing up for the next version of SOPA in 2013. As pointed out by Gautham Nagesh, the USCoC has kicked off a new ad campaign priming the pump for new legislation to "protect intellectual property."

In other words: get ready for "son of SOPA."

The powerful business lobby, perhaps the biggest supporter of controversial legislation intended to stem online piracy, is at it again. The group is up with a billboard advertisement in Manhattan's Times Square and an online video series urging Congress to "protect America's IP rights."

The Chamber is claiming that "this is an awareness campaign.... not political," but no one believes that. They've also set up a "website" at DangerousFakes.com, which includes a silly video and more debunked stats.

World-wide cross border trade in physical counterfeits alone costs the global economy $250 billion a year.

This number is so bogus that it's been debunked through and through over and over again through the years. As we have explained, the real number may be closer to about $5 billion (still decently large, but nowhere near $250 billion) and that $250 billion is based on a single unsourced claim in an article in Forbes from 20 years ago. In other words: bogus.

96% of all online pharmacies are operating illegally, many out of compliance with international IP laws that protect the public health and safety.

Of course, this depends on how you define "illegally." Many are merely gray market re-importers, helping people get more affordable, and perfectly legitimate drugs. But the big pharma companies (USCoC members, of course) don't like the competition and efforts to drive down their insane margins.

In the United States, the domestic value of counterfeit pharmaceutical seizures in FY 2011 rose by more than $11 million, an increase of almost 200%.

And, again, how much of that was gray market, legitimate drugs that were just being re-imported? And how much of it were true "fakes"? Also, if the problem is really $250 billion, doesn't it seem to highlight how small a problem fake drugs are if the US seized just $11 million approximately $17 million worth? (Update: Correcting the number based on $11 million being the "increase" of "almost 200%" to approximate the total). Oh, and note that they said "domestic value," not the actual price. That's because they're taking the fake drugs and then inflating them way up to the price that would have been charged. Meaning the real amount seized was much, much less.

Counterfeits also have the potential to put our military at risk and jeopardize our national security missions, according to two recent reports by the Department of Commerce and the Government Accountability Office.

More fear mongering. And of course, if the military is buying counterfeit parts, shouldn't the focus be on the military's procurement process? Why is the military buying from shady equipment dealers in the first place?

The thing is, there is a risk from fake drugs and military equipment, but it's a really, really, really small problem. Barely noticeable. That's why the Chamber likes to lump those in with other things, like copyright infringement, because then they can pretend that the "risk" is really big. But it's not. I'm all for focusing in on stopping those who actually sell truly fake drugs and fake military parts, but there really aren't that many of those out there, and they can be targeted specifically, rather than passing broad legislation with massive consequences for the rest of the internet.

But that's not how the Chamber works.

We've argued for a while that the US's effort to censor websites at home while talking about internet freedom is hypocritical and takes away any moral high ground the US might have had with other countries concerning their efforts to censor the internet. What's stunning, unfortunately, is how rarely US officials seem to recognize this problem. When confronted on it -- they always revert to a "but that's different!" claim, missing that this is exactly the excuse that other countries use to justify their own censorship efforts.

Case in point: there's been significant concern in India, as the government has been censoring Twitter accounts of certain journalists and political groups, as well as blocking certain websites (sometimes just blog posts, other times, full websites). As that last link explains, the content targeted for censorship tends to have to do with content around "communal issues and rioting," and thus there's an argument to be made that the censorship is for the benefit of the public, to prevent riots. Even so, of course, one can question whether or not such censorship is even effective, let alone the rather obvious temptation for those in power to overblock for their own benefit. Indeed, that last link explains that there have been "egregious mistakes" in how the blocks have been carried out.

And what about the US? With plenty of attention being paid to the debate over this Indian censorship, the US State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, was asked her thoughts about what was happening, and trotted out the standard line about internet freedom:

"On the larger question of Internet freedom, you know where we are on that issue, and we are always on the side of full freedom of the Internet," she said.

Which sounds great, of course, but if Nuland thought that such a blanket statement would let her off, she was mistaken. Reporters immediately hit back, pointing to examples of the US fighting against internet freedom in its own back yard. And Nuland apparently wasn't happy, and pulled out the "but that's different!" excuse:

But when she was probed on the issue of WikiLeaks, Nuland snapped: "WikiLeaks didn't have to do with freedom of the Internet. It had to do with the compromise of US government classified information."

To be fair the US government has not "blocked" Wikileaks. It has blocked it on certain government computers and has used public pressure to have its hosting and payment processors cut it off. Whether or not that's to the same level as to what's happening in other countries may be debatable, but it certainly opens up the US to criticism on that point. And that's the real issue here. Even if you argue "but that's different," just the fact that the US has opened itself up to such an easy retort any time it argues for internet freedom in countries that espouse censorship, it makes it that much harder for the US to seriously push an internet freedom agenda abroad.

Craigslist is somewhat famous for keeping its rather antiquated design, and refusing to make changes. Even when well meaning fans have suggested ideas for improving the site, Craigslist has resisted, insisting that it's really just about design companies who are trying to get hired.

So that makes the following story all the more interesting. You may recall that Craigslist has gotten itself into an unfortunate and petty legal spat with the site PadMapper, because PadMapper dared to make Craigslist more useful, in part by putting Craigslist housing entries on a map so people could see where they are. This is a pretty small, but incredibly useful tweak, and Craigslist -- normally a defender of internet freedom -- suddenly turned into a protectionist legal aggressor and sued.

However, as Aaron DeOliveira points out to us, Craigslist has just started quietly testing out its own upgrade... using maps. They're using OpenStreetMap (which is interesting in its own right as more and more companies are moving away from Google Maps to the much more open (duh) OpenStreetMap).

While there may not be a direct connection between PadMapper and Craigslist's decision, the timing certainly raises some eyebrows, and hints at the idea that Craigslist might just be suing PadMapper for improving Craigslist before Craigslist had a chance to launch the feature itself. Or, even worse, Craigslist thought it was such a good idea that it sued PadMapper while using its idea. That's not quite the "open innovation" model that Craig Newmark tries to champion.

For what it's worth, PadMapper's Eric DeMenthon is actually quite conciliatory about the whole thing:

“I’m glad something good came out of all this,” says PadMapper creator Eric DeMenthon. “Lots of people wrote to them about the PadMapper cease and desist [letter], so maybe that convinced them that it was worthwhile to do some mapping themselves.

Market research by suing those who try to improve you? Doesn't seem like the most effective system.

We've been unabashed champions of crowdfunding and platforms like Kickstarter for quite some time now, though we've also tried to temper some of the hype. A little over two years ago, for example, we used the story of the open social network Diaspora as a possible warning for some of the initial excitement about projects. Much of that comes from just knowing what entrepreneurs go through: the initial idea is exciting, but things change over time, and expectations change... and some projects fail. When you're dealing with investors, that's one thing -- they're sort of designed to expect such a thing. But crowdfunding had a different vibe. Because people got so excited in the idea and really (quite literally) bought into it, we worried that as some projects failed, it might lead to a serious backlash.

It may be a coincidence that we highlighted this risk with Diaspora (one of the first Kickstarter projects to go really "big") a couple years ago... but it's possible that our worries are coming true. Last week, I saw a report from Liz Gannes at AllThingsD, which suggested that the Diaspora team was focusing on something completely different, a "collaborative web remixing tool" called Makr.io. The team definitely went through some significant hardships so it's not that surprising that they've shifted gears. Given that story, it's hardly a surprise that they're now officially "handing control of the project over to the community." They claim they'll still be playing an important role, but it seems pretty clear this is an effective withdrawal from the project, which never really caught on the way some people hoped.

And, of course, this isn't just limited to Diaspora. Bloomberg recently had a (well-timed) story highlighting how an awful lot of successful Kickstarter projects, at the very least, don't meet their deadlines to actually make or ship a product. This has turned at least some people off to the service, which (again) is unfortunate.

Of course, these kinds of platforms are only a few years old, and of course they're going to go through growing pains. I hope that, as they continue to grow and find success, at least there's some greater recognition -- and public admission -- of the potential risks involved, so that they don't take people by surprise, and that people understand that as much as they love an idea, execution is the truly hard part. Investing in the idea is great, but there's a risk involved that the end result won't match the snazzy video that the team put together for Kickstarter in the first place.

As we've discussed in the past, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) produces tons of research for Congress -- much of which never sees the light of day. In general, CRS is considered extremely competent and not driven by political and partisan food fights. Reports that come out of CRS usually seem to be careful and thorough. It's just that we rarely get to see them because, even though they're technically in the public domain, they're not automatically released to the public.

Some do get out, however, and the Secrecy News blog has a few recent reports, all of which are fairly interesting, including one on Presidential claims of executive privilege (pdf). However, for folks around here, the one that may be even more interesting is CRS's exploration of patent trolls (pdf and embedded below), the problems they create, and some possible ways to deal with the problem.

In typical CRS fashion, the report is pretty straightforward, laying out the arguments in a fairly objective way, without taking any particular sides. Even so, it does do a pretty good job of objectively portraying some of the problems with patent trolls, which the report (mostly) refers to under the more diplomatic term "Patent Assertion Entities" (PAE) -- though, it does discuss the "patent troll" term a few times. The report makes repeated references to an awful lot of the excellent research that's been done in the past few years on the subject, including from Bessen & Meurer, Mark Lemley and Colleen Chien. It also relies heavily on the excellent FTC report on the problem of patent trolls, which we discussed last year.

In terms of what to do about the harm caused by patent trolls (and the report notes both potential beneficial aspects and negative ones), the report discussed the recently introduced SHIELD Act, which would aim to put an increased legal burden on trolls who sue indiscriminately against parties who clearly are not violating the patents in question. However, it also suggests a few other possible methods of reform, including carving out different rules for tech patents (though, it admits that might run afoul of some international trade agreements), better notice (i.e., better clarity on the "boundaries" of patents) and my favorite: figuring out ways to reduce the overall "leverage, hold-up and settlement pressure" that leads to patent trolls regularly getting their way, even when the patent is bogus.

All in all, it's a worthwhile read, and at the very least a useful index of some important research in the field.

Also, randomly, I'm pretty sure (though not positive) that I used to hang out with the author of the report back in college, though I lost touch with him many years ago. Small world.