Google patents Doodle

The Google Doodle is a themed version of the Google logo which appears on the main page of the Google search engine. Originally reserved for special occasions, it now changes daily and Google has a permanent staff devoted to designing new Doodles. Today, the USPTO granted a patent application for the Doodle that was filed in 2001. The patent covers a system whereby a company logo is updated periodically and clicking on the logo takes a user to appropriate search results.

Digital locks and ownership

The anti-circumvention, or digital lock, provisions are arguably the most controversial aspect of Bill C-32. Arguments on both sides of the debate dominate the dicussion of the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act. In this article, I suggest a different way of looking at the problem of technological protection measures and an approach to legal protection of digital locks on content that respects user expectations while leaving substantial control to copyright holders.

Read the rest of this entry »

MPEG-LA preparing patent attack on Google’s WebM

MPEG-LA, the patent collective that licenses the popular h.264 video codec, has issued a call for patents that may underlie Google’s competing WebM codec. Google released the codec license-free shortly after acquiring it last year. However, it is widely expected that Google may not have acquired all relevant patent licenses. MPEG-LA says that it hopes to establish a patent pool and license the codec itself.

Android app reads RFID transit cards

Eric Butler, creator of FireSheep, has released an Android app that can read RFID fare cards used on some major US transit systems. The app is not designed primarily as a tool for revealing private data or, as was the case of FireSheep, to raise awareness. However, it does demonstrate how simple it can be to access the information on these chips and highlights the need for them to be secure.

Read the rest of this entry »

California Supreme Court rules that police can search arrestee’s cell phone

In 2007, Gregory Diaz was arrested for attempting to sell drugs to a police informant. When he arrived at the police station his cell phone was seized and his text messages searched. The California Supreme Court recently held that the search was constitutional, comparing the messages in the cell phone to heroin tablets in a cigarette case. The dissenting opinion worried that this would give the police “carte blanche…to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone”.

VLC and the Apple App Store

On Friday, Apple removed the open source VLC media player from the App Store. It is believed (though not known for sure) that this happened as the result of a copyright complaint made two months ago by a developer named Rémi Denis-Courmont. A professor told my class last week that if we ever wanted to get in trouble, we just had to give an opinion on open source software. Despite that warning, here is why I think that Apple’s distribution of VLC does not violate its license.

About VLC

VLC is an alternative media player that plays a wide range of video formats and is available for all desktop operating systems. It is developed by the VideoLAN team and the source code is freely available through their website. A third party developer (Applidium) used this source code to develop a mobile version of VLC. As was required by the GPL (see below), they made the source code for their modifications available on their own website.

About the GPL

VLC is released under the GNU Public License (GPL) version 2. The GPL is a “copyleft” licenses. It provides everyone who receives a copy of the software with the right to use, modify and redistribute the software however they see fit. However, anyone who redistributes the software (or a derivative) must do so under the same license. Because of this, the GPL is often referred to as a viral license; the use of any GPL code in a software project attaches the license to the entire project. GPL software does not need to be free of charge, but it often is because the license gives away the right to control copying and redistribution after sale.

The GPL also forbids anyone who redistributes the software or a derivative work from attaching any additional restrictions:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein….

VLC, GPL, and the App Store

The App Store Terms and Conditions (“Terms”) impose restrictions that affect how apps may be copied and redistributed. The Terms govern your use of the App Store distribution services (“Services”) and set out Product Usage Rules. The Product Usage Rules set out how a Product downloaded from the Services may be used and warn you that any other use may be copyright infringement. The Free Software Foundation (which created the GPL) has stated two reasons why the GPL (v2) is incompatible with the App Store Terms and Conditions: (1) you are required to accept the Terms, (2) the Product Usage Rules limit your use of the downloaded app. I believe, however, that this mischaracterizes the Terms in two ways.

First, the App Store Terms of Use apply to your use of the App Store distribution service and the iTunes software on your computer. The requirement that you accept the terms occurs prior to distribution and is akin to requiring that someone pay for the initial distribution; it is not a restriction on the right to copy, distribute or modify the program. Once you have a copy of the Product, you have all the rights in the GPL because the Terms state that your use of the Product is subject to the license agreement entered into by the developer and the user (and the Product Usage Rules). What you may not have is the technical ability to exercise these rights. However, the GPL does not require a distributor or a third-party (Apple) to help the user exercise their rights. In other words, Apple cannot attach a license to VLC prohibiting the user from modifying it and loading it onto their phone, but it is fine that iTunes doesn’t provide that functionality. Legal and technical restrictions on equipment and software other than the GPL-licensed Product may have a practical effect on your ability to exercise your rights without violating the license agreement.

Second, the Product Usage Rules are permissive, not restrictive. This was not true when the FSF posted their opinion. Currently, though, the Product Usage Rules permit users to download and sync Products for personal use on all their iOS devices. They do not prohibit you from copying the Product to another person’s device or modifying it if the Product license permits that. In their current form, the Product Usage Rules set a minimum set of rights that a Product must allow. For example, they prevent a Product from being distributed with a license that only covers a single device.

The App Store Terms are a divisive issue in the very idealogical open source community. However, I do not think that distributing a GPL app via the App Store and in accordance with their Terms is a violation of the GPL version 2. Version 3 of the GPL contains special provisions requiring that the developer provide sufficient “installation information” to allow a user to run modified versions of the software. It may not be possible for an app licensed under GPLv3 to be distributed via the App Store due to the practical restrictions discussed above.

For all its popularity in open source software, the GPL has not been the subject of much litigation. It is drafted in very general terms so that it may be applied to many different projects. Thus it is very hard to predict how a court case would turn out. It’s not surprising that Apple doesn’t want to take any chances.

US Supreme Court split on parallel import ban

The US Supreme Court released their ruling on Omega v. Costco today, affirming the 9th Circuit ruling in favour of Omega. The case considered whether the first sale rule applied to copyrighted goods manufactured outside the United States (a previous case, Quality King, held that first sale applied to goods manufactured in the US, exported, and re-imported). The applicability of the first sale doctrine determines whether or not Costco can import grey market watches for sale in the US. The court was evenly split (the newest Justice took no part in the decision), therefore the ruling continues to be only binding in the 9th Circuit and was released without reasons.

Google Search subject to EU anti-trust investigation

The European Union has announced that it has opened a formal investigation into allegations that Google favours its own properties over competing services in search results. When a user searches for something, hotels for example, Google displays prices and reviews from it’s own travel service as the first result while links to other travel sites are farther down the page. The EU is also investigating claims that Google is discriminating against competitors in advertising provided to third party websites.

Utilities may place DRA for police without warrant

In R. v. Gomboc, released last week, the Supreme Court considered whether the police violated the accused’s s. 8 rights by asking his electrical utility to install a digital recording ammeter to monitor his electrical usage. The majority held that it did not for various reasons (4 held that there was no expectation of privacy in such data, 3 that the expectation was defeated by regulation allowing the accused to opt-in to confidentiality). McLachlin C.J. (with Fish J.) dissented, stating “when we subscribe for public services, we do not authorize the police to conscript the utilities concerned to enter our homes, physically or electronically, for the purpose of pursuing their criminal investigations without prior judicial authorization.”

Amazon, free speech, and privacy

It’s almost rote to state that the difference between privacy in Canada and the United States is that the Canadian regime is broad and general while the American is sectoral. At the federal level, Canada has a single overarching law, PIPEDA, while the US has a health privacy act, a video rental privacy act, a financial privacy act, and so on. In theory, this means that only sectors which are specifically legislated have privacy protection. However, as the recent judgment in Amazon v. Lay reminds us, privacy rights can be found everywhere.

In December 2009, the North Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) requested information regarding all sales made by Amazon in their state for the purpose of assessing sales tax liability. Amazon complied by providing a list of all the items sold, but declined to give any identifying information about the purchasers. The DOR followed up with a request for names and addresses of the customers; Amazon refused and filed suit in Washington state. They sought a declaration that the request violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Video Privacy Protection Act.

That the First Amendment supports a right to privacy is not a novel claim. As various anonymous leaflet cases have shown, it is clear that the First Amendment protects the privacy of anonymous speakers. One can easily see how the same reasoning would extend to protect consumers. After all, there is little worth in freedom to express a controversial opinion if your audience isn’t free (or doesn’t feel free) to hear it. Amazon itself has succeeded on those grounds before. In 2006, Amazon was asked to turn over purchase records of books sold through Amazon from a particular publisher that was being prosecuted for tax evasion. In that case, the court held that the First Amendment prevented the government from peeking into the reading habits of specific individuals without their consent.

In Amazon v. Lay, the court held that the government was required to show a pressing need for the information and that there was no less restrictive means of acheiving the goal. Lacking that, and despite statutory subpoena powers, Amazon could not be compelled to turn over the information on purchasers of books, videos, and music through its service. There is one important limitation to its ruling, it only prevents the DOR from subpoenaing customer information while it is in possession of the list of specific purchases. The court allows for the DOR to destroy all copies of the original list and request a list containing only the amounts spent. This would not contain sufficient information about individual reading habits to engage the First Amendment.