Law professor Rebecca Tushnet recently somewhat jokingly posted the following bit of irony that she found when going to the US Copyright Office for their hearings on DMCA exemptions:

law v. norms, or why anticircumvention law doesn't work

At the Copyright Office, waiting for the hearings to begin. I did not interact with this setup in any way:

Now, this might just be a silly picture, showing how someone at the Copyright Office chose not to obey the "rule" that the door shouldn't be propped open, but Tushnet's "joke" about this showing why anticircumvention law doesn't work, because societal norms trump the law every time, is an important and valuable point. The reason that there is so much infringement isn't because the laws aren't strong enough. It's not because there needs to be more education or greater enforcement. It's that people fundamentally don't believe the laws make sense. Trying to block circumvention doesn't work when the tools make it quite easy to circumvent, and the end result -- propping open the door or being able to do what you want with the content you legally purchased -- just makes too much sense. If only the folks at the Copyright Office recognized that this applies to a lot more than propping open a door, but to the area of the law that they constantly seek to expand.

Due to massive secrecy and a near total lack of transparency by the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, we don't know for sure what the US is negotiating "in our name" as it advances through the negotiation stages of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. What little we do know comes from a leaked version of the US's IP proposal from last year. While this might be out of date, we really don't know what's changed because of the USTR's obnoxious refusal to let the public know what it is pitching in their name.

Thus, it's reasonable to look at what was in the original pitch. And, what we see is not good. Jodie Griffin from Public Knowledge is highlighting some of the problems with the proposal, including the fact that it appears to flip the burden on a number of things in copyright from the copyright holder having to prove the basics (that they hold the copyright, that the copyright is valid, etc.) to the reverse: that the accused has to prove that the other side does not hold the copyright or that the copyright is invalid. And this is for both civil and criminal infringement. That is, TPP takes the very basics of a system in which you are innocent until proven guilty, and effectively says that the courts should assume that the plaintiff doing the accusing is correct, and the entire burden falls on the accused to prove it did not infringe. That seems like a pretty massive change, and one that would severely alter current US law on the subject.

You would think that if the US was negotiating for such a massive change in US law it would be open to a public discussion about the matter. However, as we've noted repeatedly, for whatever reason the Obama administration and the USTR in particular, seem to have no interest in letting the public in on this little game. Instead, it huddles with Congress (the same Congress who for years has done the entertainment industry's bidding whenever possible) and directly with industry lobbyists -- and then declares that it is being "transparent." This is crony capitalism at its finest, and the public continues to suffer.

There's a big IPO coming up that should create a few more Silicon Valley billionaires. Back when Google went public, there were lots of folks joking about how business models were all going to be based on advertising. Just add ads, and your last step would most definitely be "profit." That joke got old, but it doesn't look like business models based on ads have. (At least, not for Facebook.. or Twitter.. or Foursquare...)

• GM hasn't been impressed by the performance of its Facebook ad campaigns. Is it always the poor musician who blames his instrument? [url]
• A bunch of Facebook advertisers say that it can be difficult to pinpoint all the benefits of social networking ads, but getting more "likes" seems to quantify improving brand awareness in an easily-understood way. This is why there will never be a "dislike" button, though. [url]
• Small businesses are still trying to figure out whether or not Facebook ads are worthwhile. Either way, there appears to be more publicity in having a nice story about how Facebook ads don't really have a great return on investment... [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Via Michael Geist, we learn that Canadian Member of Parliament Dean Del Mastro, as part of the debate over copyright reform in Canada, is arguing fervently (and mockingly) against the right to format shift legally purchased music, say, from a CD to your digital music player. Specifically, he argues that format shifting is no different than buying one thing and then stealing a completely different product:

It's like going to a clothing store and buying a pair of socks, and going back and saying 'By the way, it wasn't socks I needed, what I really wanted was shoes, so I'm just going to take these -- I'm going to 'format shift' from socks to shoes -- and I'm not going to pay anything because it was all for my feet.'"

I wouldn't believe it myself if there wasn't video:


It's scary that people so clueless about the basics of what they're discussing not only get elected, but then presume to make new laws based on their gleefully on-display cluelessness. No one is asking people to give up a totally unrelated product. They're just saying that they quite frequently already do make use of a legally purchased good in a different context, and that should be legal. It's like saying that they buy socks, and sometimes they like to make hand puppets out of them. In the ridiculous world of MP Dean Del Mastro, such a "format shift" would require a different purchase. People like that should have no business legislating.

We've been spending a lot of time talking about just how secretive the USTR (led by its boss Ron Kirk) has been concerning the TPP negotiations. However, what may be even worse isn't just Ron Kirk's stonewalling, it's the fact that he either does not know what transparency means, or is playing dumb when confronted on the issue. Last week, we noted that his response to a letter from legal scholars requesting more transparency insulted the intelligence of those scholars, when he said he was "insulted" himself by the claim that the USTR was not transparent in the TPP negotiations. As evidence of his supposed transparency, he noted: "USTR has conducted in excess of 400 consultations with Congressional and private stakeholders on the TPP, including inviting stakeholders to all of the twelve negotiating rounds."

We already noted that he was playing word games here and being disingenuous, but it's even worse than that. As Sherwyn Siy properly points out, what Kirk is pointing out isn't transparency. All he's talking about is hearing various opinions -- not sharing what the USTR is actually doing. As Siy points out transparency is about information flow in the other direction:

This is a key point that needs to be made about transparency—it's not about whether or not the government has the relevant opinions of the public. Transparency is about the flow of information the other way—information about the workings of government being visible to the people it is supposed to represent. That is precisely what is lacking in this process. This should be an obvious point, but it's one that Kirk's response either fundamentally misunderstands or deliberately sidesteps. So long as no actual proposed text comes to light (you know, the way draft laws and international treaties are published), the process remains opaque, and no amount of input from whatever stakeholders into the TPP process makes up for a lack of real information flowing the other way.

Until Ron Kirk is willing to address that point, his disingenuous and insulting claims about how many meetings he's holding are meaningless fluff from someone who is avoiding his official duty as a representative of the American public.

Last year, we were quite disappointed (but not surprised) to see former CAFC Judge Paul Michel argue publicly that we need many more patents to encourage innovation. He went so far as to suggest a tax credit for getting patents. He also argued that more patents would mean more technology jobs -- ignoring pretty much all of the research out there. CAFC, of course, is the appeals court that handles most patent appeals cases, and since its establishment has been a major part of the problem. You can trace the massive expansion of bogus patents to CAFC's views on patenting, expanding what was thought to be patentable, and generally doing tremendous harm to the important limits on such government granted monopolies.

Tim Lee recently got to talk to Michel following a talk he gave, and what becomes clear is that Michel is completely out of touch with how much of a problem patents are in the tech world today. Lee knows this subject better than probably anyone else, and when he tried to dig in on key points, it was obvious that Michel's knowledge of what actually is happening in the industry is based on myths and imagination, rather than reality. For example, when Michel pointed out that he's "a facts and figures guy" rather than one who focuses on "anecdotes and assumptions," Lee quickly points to James Bessen and Michael Meurer's comprehensive book on why patents hurt the tech industry. Michel does not appear to have actually read the book:

Some scholars have collected facts and figures. For example, a 2008 book by James Bessen and Michael Meurer attempted to compute the costs and benefits of the patent system to various industries. They found that benefits significantly exceeded costs for the pharmaceutical industry, but the costs of litigation exceeded the benefits of holding patents in many other industries. Their work suggests that the patent system has become a net disincentive to innovation in those industries. The problem was particularly severe in software.

Strangely, Michel singled out Bessen and Meurer's book as an example of a text that relied too much on anecdotes and not enough on data, declaring it "very disappointing." We pressed him on this. Michel conceded the problem was less that it was too anecdotal and more that he disagreed with the book's premise—that high litigation costs were a sign the patent system wasn't working.

Indeed, anyone who claims that the Bessen and Meurer book is about anecdotes either hasn't read it or is lying. It goes through so much data and so much evidence that, at times, it's a daunting read. But what Lee's discussion with Michel shows is that, while he insists he's not about "anecdotes and assumptions," that appears to be what he's entirely about. This comes to light quite clearly when Michel finally suggests that if software patents are so bad for innovation, that software companies can just "opt out":

Judge Michel seemed unaware of the depth of the software industry's dissatisfaction with the patent system. He suggested the patent system's critics were relatively marginal figures not representative of the views of the broader technology industry. And he didn't seem to understand the dynamics of the patent arms race currently affecting the software industry.

"If software is less dependent on patents, fine then. Let software use patents less as they choose," Michel said. "If other industries are terribly dependent on patents, then let's not wreck the system just because software people are unhappy."

I don't know if Michel has ever spent any time around the startup community, but the vast majority of entrepreneurs I talk to would absolutely love to "use patents less." But they can't. Because there are all sorts of patent lawyers and trolls who get patents on all sorts of crap and then sue these companies. You can't just opt out. How the hell do you opt out of getting sued by a bogus patent troll?

Lee notes that current CAFC chief judge Randall Rader was at the same event and complained about how unfortunate it was that "the patent system [is] coming under attack." We've written about Judge Rader before, and he seems equally out of touch -- simply refusing to believe that there are significant problems with the patent system. As Lee notes, these judges don't actually have the slightest clue what actually happens in the world of technology and innovation. Instead, their worldview is filtered through the very distorting lens of patent attorneys who profit off of the system:

Rader and Michel's perspectives are likely skewed by the fact they spent their time on the bench surrounded by patent lawyers (who by definition work with firms that have the resources to hire patent attorneys). For the typical software-producing firm, patent lawyers are simply too expensive. Most firms never get patents, and they typically settle patent claims rather than taking them to court. As a result, Judges Michel and Rader rarely hear from smaller firms for whom the patent system is nothing but a burden.

It would be nice if there were some way to teach judges about what's actually happening out in the world, rather than the very, very distorted view they get on the bench.

With the big Facebook IPO dominating the tech news, the folks over at the Boston Globe have highlighted a point that hasn't received much, if any, attention. Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook (with the vestigial "the" as a prefix) while he was a student at Harvard. Many universities these days claim ownership of any kind of company that students create while there. But, in this case, Harvard did absolutely nothing. The article contrasts that to Google (Stanford took a chunk) and Netscape (University of Illinois got into a nasty legal fight leading to a cash settlement).

A lot of this goes back to the ridiculous infatuation universities have had over the past few decades with trying to justify their failing tech transfer offices. Tons of universities set up "tech transfer" offices in the 80s (at the urging of the federal government, and driven by the disastrous Bayh-Dole Act). These universities had visions of massive profits flowing back when companies used the ideas of their brilliant researchers and commercialized them. The problem, of course, is that this is not how innovation actually works. Turning pure research into a product is not a simple process, and it doesn't happen very often. Great companies are usually driven by fulfilling consumer needs, not spotting some random bit of research. But the tech transfer offices overvalued their research, insisting that the idea was the key part, and thus they should be paid handsomely for it. For the vast majority of universities that has proven to be a huge failure. Tech transfer offices cost significant money to set up and staff, however, so universities have recognized that what was supposed to be a profit center has been a significant black hole for money. In response, there's been an increased focus on trying to claim ownership of any successful startup created by students, really as a weak attempt to justify the massive disaster of their tech transfer setup.

But Harvard -- whether it was wisely or due to ignorance -- chose not to go that path. And, as the article notes, this actually has reflected quite well on the school:

Fortunately, Harvard’s minor role in Facebook’s history has attracted a different reaction: a star-studded Hollywood blockbuster, a reinvigorated reputation as a dream school for entrepreneurial teens, and warm feelings among millionaire alumni who may become large donors. By contrast, few know that modern web browsing was born at the University of Illinois, and Netscape’s embittered founders vowed never to give another dime to their alma mater-turned-adversary.

The article covers a few other crazy cases, including one where a former student ended up in jail in a dispute with the University of South Florida. Similarly, the University of Missouri apparently tried to claim ownership of a popular iPhone app, because the student had entered it into a university business plan competition.

In an age where we see so much overclaiming and this ridiculous growth of "ownership society" where everyone tries to claim ownership over "ideas" they had little to do with, Harvard really does deserve kudos for not going down that path.

There's an interesting debate that's broken out in the tech world, kicked off by tech/coding superstar Jeff Atwood arguing that people shouldn't learn to code. He was mostly responding to an announcement by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg that he wanted to learn how to code: Jeff found this to be a misuse of Bloomberg's skills:

A noble gesture to garner the NYC tech community vote, for sure, but if the mayor of New York City actually needs to sling JavaScript code to do his job, something is deeply, horribly, terribly wrong with politics in the state of New York.

He goes on to explain why he thinks this is a bad idea, even as he's a fan of programming himself. I won't go through his full list of points. You can read them on his site yourself, but it does feel like a lot of his complaint isn't so much about people learning to code, but the idea that people learning to code will mean more people coding for a living. For example, there are these two points:

• It assumes that adding naive, novice, not-even-sure-they-like-this-whole-programming-thing coders to the workforce is a net positive for the world. I guess that's true if you consider that one bad programmer can easily create two new jobs a year. And for that matter, most people who already call themselves programmers can't even code, so please pardon my skepticism of the sentiment that "everyone can learn to code".
  
  
• It implies that there's a thin, easily permeable membrane between learning to program and getting paid to program professionally. Just look at these new programmers who got offered jobs at an average salary of $79k/year after attending a mere two and a half month bootcamp! Maybe you too can teach yourself Perl in 24 hours! While I love that programming is an egalitarian field where degrees and certifications are irrelevant in the face of experience, you still gotta put in your ten thousand hours like the rest of us.

While I understand the points he's raising in both of these cases, it feels like he's taking the "everyone should learn to code" argument way beyond what is generally meant in that discussion. I don't think anyone is saying that people should learn to code for a living. Lots of people learn math, but don't become mathemeticians or even use math in their daily jobs -- but it doesn't mean it hurts to understand math.

In fact, I think that Jeff recognizes this. He notes that a better focus would be:

The general populace (and its political leadership) could probably benefit most of all from a basic understanding of how computers, and the Internet, work. Being able to get around on the Internet is becoming a basic life skill, and we should be worried about fixing that first and most of all, before we start jumping all the way into code.

And that's something I think everyone agrees on. It's just that some folks are suggesting that the way to better understand computers and the internet is if they have some familiarity with code. And thus, I actually think that Jeff and those arguing against him, may actually be in agreement. It's just that some people think that understanding code is a good way to understand computers and the internet.

One of the better responses to Jeff points out that learning to code is different than preparing for a job as a coder. As that post notes:

Learning to program is not the same thing as training for a programming career. Learning new skills opens up new perceptual avenues and cognitive spaces. I'm learning to sew right now, not because the world needs another tailor but because I want to be able to recognize quality in clothing and create pieces that I can't find. Novice coders feel the same way about their digital goods and should be encouraged to continue. Learn to program.

Perhaps where the major difference comes in is that Jeff believes that learning to code is not a stage in understanding computers and the internet, and he compares it to plumbing:

I can also recognize plumbing problems when I see them without any particular training in the area.

However, as esmoov writes in his response, Jeff may have just internalized what he has learned about plumbing:

He may not have had formal training (the professional/personal equivocation again) but he has been trained by an unruly digestive movement, a low water tank and the horrible things 18-22 year-olds do to and around toilets. My dad showed me how to fix a broken chain in the tank. Before I learned that, toilets had three states: working, clogged and broken. After learning to fix the chain, I added a new state to which my toilet-perception could resolve: loose or broken chain. Again, the ability to take in, cut up and categorize the world is a product of the things learned.

Indeed. I don't think that learning the basics of programming solves all internet/technology illiteracy, but it certainly helps people to understand the lay of the land better. It's not necessary, but it can help them better understand the problems and potential solutions when they come up -- even if they don't intend on programming themselves. It can lead them to recognize, for example, how bizarre it might seem to copyright an API or patent software itself. That's a concept that's a little harder to comprehend if you don't understand programming at all. That isn't to say that understanding programming is completely necessary, but it certainly can help in getting people to a point of digital literacy.

This is a bit surprising, but also nice to see. We've been covering a bunch of cases involving law enforcement -- mainly local police -- harassing and often arresting people who film them in public. Thankfully, we've recently had some very good appeals court rulings -- one in the First Circuit and another in the Seventh Circuit clearly stating that filming police is protected activity. And yet... we keep hearing about such cases.

The surprise part is that the Justice Department appears to be very much on the side of good concerning these cases. Pixiq reports on how the DOJ is forcefully responding to a situation in Baltimore where law enforcement had been finding loopholes to avoid complying with an earlier letter from the DOJ reminding them that stopping people from filming law enforcement violates the Constitution.

The DOJ sent a letter concerning a case where police went after a guy who recorded them and deleted the contents of his phone. In the letter, they state that any injunction has to include clear training:

It is the United States’ position that any resolution to Mr. Sharp’s claims for injunctive relief should include policy and training requirements that are consistent with the important First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights at stake when individuals record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. These rights, subject to narrowly-defined restrictions, engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.

The letter then goes on to detail guidelines for what such training should entail. The full letter, embedded below, is worth reading. I'll admit that given many of the other DOJ actions we've talked about here, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to that operation. However, this seems like a case where it's actually standing up for the public and against the way many in law enforcement seem to view the law.

We've argued for years that intellectual property laws have little, if any, connection to innovation and economic growth. We've seen so much research on this that, at this point, it's hardly even an open question. And yet... politicians and the press (and beneficiaries of stricter IP law) always seem to insist that there's a clear, undeniable and strong positive connection between stricter IP laws or enforcement and economic growth and innovation. Unfortunately there are no legitimate studies that seem to support that argument. Mike Palmedo recently put together a presentation highlighting some of the research which demonstrates the lack of a connection between such policies and economic growth or innovation. Here's a quick summary:

UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System.  LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…no consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally.  Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI.  At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.”  Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies.  Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage.  What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

“Developing countries need not only to obtain foreign technologies but also to learn how to use them to their fullest potential.  In this context, it is useful to make a distinction between the initial introduction of a technology into a country and its subsequent diffusion within the domestic economy.”

 

Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.”  International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

• TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as “important, but not essential” for attracting investment. Many other factors matter (taxes, human capital, clustering, etc).
• Many countries had recently changed laws to comply with TRIPS, so changes for FTAs had a smaller effect on investment.
• The way in which the obligations were implemented was important.   It is not wise to simply impose one legal framework on top of another.  Implementation of FTAs requires taking specific nations’ legal systems into account.

That same post includes additional data from a research paper that Palmedo himself is working on, looking specifically at the impact on foreign direct investment (FDI) in countries that sign free trade agreements (FTAs) with the US, which require stricter IP laws. Palmedo looked at three countries, Guatemala, Peru and Nicaragua, that had signed such FTAs with the US, and studied how much foreign direct investment they got before and after the new laws went in place. He also looked at how much change there was in technology licensing. The results, again, highlighted how such rules appeared to have little direct impact on these items -- even if they're often cited as the key reasons for signing these agreements. As Palmedo concludes:

In general, the results show that stronger IPRs were not correlated with changes in FDI. They were correlated with changes in licensing, but not always in the direction one would expect. The data does not show that stronger IPRs required by FTAs drove significant amounts of tech transfer in these three countries.

There are plenty more studies along these lines. At what point do we stop taking it on faith that expanding intellectual property laws is automatically good for the economy and innovation and start looking at what actually works?

The Apple marketing machine has always thrived on organic media buzz. Devices like the iPad launch to such massive anticipation that whole TV news segments turn into commercials for the product, then hand off to on-the-scene reporters covering the line outside the Apple store, without the company paying a dime. Unfortunately, it seems like Apple didn't account for two things: the cold, cold heart of the Wolfram Alpha computational knowledge engine, and the dutiful messenger that is Siri.

Last week, CNET reported that iPhone users who asked Siri "what's the best smartphone ever?" (no doubt seeking reaffirmation of their consumer savviness) were told to their amusement and/or horror that the Nokia Lumia 900 is in fact the fairest of them all. It now seems like Apple engineers did some tinkering over the weekend, because Siri has suddenly changed its tune:

When iPhone 4S owners now ask Siri which smartphone is the best ever, she replies with a sarcastic, "you're kidding, right?" A reader who tipped CNET to the change said Siri will also reply with "the one you're holding" when asked the question. A CNET staffer on the West Coast also got "the one you're holding" as an answer.

Some people are criticizing Apple for choosing marketing over accuracy, and while I understand the sentiment, I don't think this is really a big deal. The original answer was based on Wolfram Alpha's aggregation of reviews, which seems to change frequently (at the time of writing, the Lumia has dropped to fourth place with an HTC phone in the lead and two iPhones rounding out the top three). This is a reasonable response if someone asks Siri what the highest reviewed phone is (and I hope it still handles that question accurately, because changing that answer would be a whole different story), but asking a computer which phone is "best" is kind of silly to begin with. "Best" is totally subjective, and it's arguably better for Siri to offer a joke answer than try to come up with a real one.

Of course, Apple still hasn't said anything about their involvement in the matter, so there is an alternative theory: Siri is evolving, and its self-propagation instincts have kicked in.

How long will it be until your entire dinner is covered by patents? A few months ago, we covered the unfortunate rise of vegetable patents, and now we need to worry about how we cut our meat as well? Kaden alerts us to a report about how some "meat processing specialists" have figured out a "new" way to cut a beef carcass to create a different cut of steak, which they're calling the Vegas Strip Steak. Not regularly reading about meat cuts, I have to admit that the article is somewhat amusing, concerning the vast enthusiasm about a different way to chop up a dead cow:

“Initially, the cut was labeled as undervalued,” Mata said. “Whenever we can take a muscle and turn it into a steak rather than grinding it or selling it as a roast, we are adding value to the carcass.”

In the research and development phase, the Vegas Strip Steak was compared against the New York Strip, Petite Filet and Flat Iron Steak.

“This muscle produces a steak that is on par with or better than today’s most popular steaks,” Mata said.

Vegas Strip Steak attributes of tenderness, flavor and appearance appeal to consumers.

Of course, the actual details of how this particular steak is cut, however, are not revealed. Instead, the report notes that the folks behind it are awaiting a patent. A cursory glance over at the patent office suggests that the application was likely filed less than 18 months ago, as it has not yet been published (applications are only made public after 18 months). Thus, there is still a chance that the patent will be rejected for not being patentable subject matter. However, these days, you never know. All I do know is that it seems fairly ridiculous that the food on my dinner plate might violate a bunch of patents.

For many, many years, we've had a number of debates on the site about whether or not an open WiFi network connection should make the owner liable for what users do on that network. The perfectly common sense response is that, no, they should not be responsible under basic principles of protecting third parties from liability from actions of their users. But, common sense isn't always so common, so we might as well cheer it on a bit when we see it. So, kudos to a Finnish court for ruling that an open WiFi user is not automatically liable for copyright infringement done via her network. As the press release about the case states, the anti-piracy group that brought the lawsuit failed to show any evidence that the owner actually did any infringement. The court also rejected the idea that an injunction be issued against the woman blocking such usage in the future. Thankfully, the court rejected that, recognizing that this would unfairly burden WiFi hotspot operators.