New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee, who is writing a book about Chinese food in America (disclosure: I'm friends with Lee), writes about the increasing trend toward locking up food ideas with IP, and interviews law professor and IP balance crusader Tim Wu about the law involved.

Apple's iPhone is being released today amid tremendous anticipation and publicity. But despite the great innovation it represents in mobile technology, the iPhone is also a step backward for some of the worst practices of the mobile industry.

The phone will only work on AT&T's network, unlike other GSM phones, making it impossible for a customer to lawfully purchase it and then connect it to another GSM network in the U.S. (T-Mobile) or any GSM system overseas. This is the same AT&T that recently announced its intention to built technology to spy on its customers on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA.

AT&T will charge an early termination fee if you cancel service, even though they don't subsidize the phone at all, despite the widespread claim in the mobile industry that the purpose of the ETFs is to recoup their cost of providing a free or discounted phone with activation.

And worst of all, the iPhone doesn't allow third party applications at all - even worse than Verizon's practice, the previous worst, of requiring all application writers to go through an arduous approval process and pay high costs to Verizon. The iPhone does allow AJAX Web apps to run on the phone's Safari browser, which ameliorates much of the problem, but that has many limits, most of which aren't yet known. Will the apps be able to access the camera or microphone? (Probably not.) Will they be able to take advantage of the innovative input gestures like zooming by moving fingers closer or farther? Access the address book? Save files locally? Apple could have built an API for developers, but they've never been particularly interested in fostering a development community around their technology.

Many defenders of wireless industry practices like early termination fees and locking argue that if consumers really cared about these things, they wouldn't purchase phones and plans with them. Well, I'm not purchasing an iPhone. And I hope you won't either.

Working Assets Wireless has launched a campaign to pressure Steve Jobs to unlock the iPhone for any network and has done a terrific job of building awareness of Apple's and AT&T's anti-innovation, anti-consumer practices. I encourage you to sign their petition, and most of all, don't buy an iPhone.

Update: Working Assets Blog linked to us about this issue.

The field of computer science, at base, is about efficiency. Algorithms are evaluated based on the time they take to run - "big O notation", using formulas like O(n²) or O(n log n) telling how much time it takes to accomplish a task based on the size of the input. Programmers love to optimize systems, to make them run faster and better and more reliably. And one of the great joys of computer engineering, unlike, say, architecture or bridge building, is that if something doesn't work optimally, it's often not that expensive to simply rewrite it.

It's easy to think government ought to work the same way. After all, government is simply a social construct, governed by a set of rules (laws) just as a computer program governs a machine's behavior. (Larry Lessig famously wrote how "code is law".) If some aspect of government isn't working, why can't we just reprogram it?

Unfortunately, government is not just a socially programmed system executing a set of legal instructions, but it's a complex one with lots of dependencies. In software, you might choose to simply rewrite your code, but you may be running it on an operating system you didn't write, with an application server you didn't write, accessing a database you didn't write. (If they're open source, you can try to submit patches, but they won't always be accepted). Or maybe your client needs you to integrate your code with some legacy system written decades ago on an IBM mainframe in FORTRAN.

When dealing with a system we can't fix, we try sending it data and seeing what it will do. If I call this function, this happens. If I put that data there, that happens. Software engineers start acting like biochemists - if the cell's concentration of ions is such-and-such, then the cell will exhibit so-and-so behavior. You can complain about the cell or curse the people who wrote the FORTRAN code, but you can't reason with these systems and explain to them why they're wrong.

To get results, we must treat government similarly. Think of Congress as a black box that reacts to various stimuli. Send them ten thousand letters from citizens in their districts about an issue, and they'll pay attention. Get a lot of people to give money to their challenger, and they'll think long and hard before voting against your point of view. Make it clear that voters care about an issue, and they'll care, too.

People on Capitol Hill like to think they're impartial stewards of the country, thinking dispassionately about the Right Thing to Do. But usually there's no consensus on what that right thing is. And when people in Congress do the wrong thing, it's easy to get frustrated about their backward thinking. Ed Felten, a terrific advocate for engineers, wrote a clever post rightly excoriating Rep. Howard Berman for saying he'd consulted "all the interested parties" on patent reform legislation when in truth he'd only consulted all of the Beltway lobbying groups, not citizens. Many commenters chimed in that politicians only listen to the groups that give them money and "know which master they are serving."

Back when Berman was appointed chair of the House IP Subcommittee, Larry Lessig wrote a scathing critique of the Democrats, newly in the majority. "'Radical' changes in Washington always have this Charlie Brown/Lucy-like character (remember Lucy holding the football?): it doesn't take long before you realize how little really ever changes in DC. Message to the Net from the newly Democratic House? Go to hell." Lessig saw Berman's appointment as a rejection of the blogs and activist groups on the Net that regained them the majority.

Felten is right that Berman wasn't considering the public interest. Lessig was right that the leadership wasn't considering Net activists' concerns when appointing him in the first place. But simply saying that on a blog is like saying that a cancerous cell shouldn't be dividing so darn much. True, but we don't just talk about it, we develop chemotherapy and radiation and drugs to stop it. Instead of just blogging or whining on comments, we need to be developing antibodies to the special interest groups. The ordinary citizens, who Congress isn't listening to, need to make themselves heard, by writing letters, making phone calls, signing petitions, giving money, and voting.

We know it works. Just look at Net Neutrality, an issue that most people still don't understand. But a coalition of groups from Free Press to MoveOn to the Christian Coalition worked together and didn't just talk, they bombarded Congress with advocacy. And it got results. Several major Presidential candidates and the Congressional leadership came out in support of Net Neutrality. The stimulus was strong enough, and the response meaningful. That fight is far from over, but it shows what citizens can do when they take action.

Next time you read about the latest assault on Internet freedom, don't just blog about it. To Lessig, Felten, Cory Doctorow, and all the other great bloggers, don't just write about how much it sucks, direct people to get involved to fix it. Encourage them to join or give to groups like Save the Internet, Free Press, Public Knowledge, EFF, or the political action commitee I founded, IPac, as well as many more.

For a long time everyone complained bitterly about Microsoft's monopolistic behavior and its operating system dominance. Then some hackers got together, enlisted more hackers, and created an alternative so good that most Web sites don't run on Microsoft software and (coupled with several more innovations) some people say "Microsoft is dead." We can make the IP extremists' and the information gatekeepers' positions dead in Washington, too.

Some manufacturers of physical goods are abusing eBay's "Verified Rights Owner" (VeRO) program to stifle not unlawful counterfeiting, as the policy is meant to address, but perfectly legal reselling of new or used goods. Infoworld tells the story of Nervous Tattoo, Inc., makers of "Don Ed Hardy" merchandise, who don't like seeing their stuff resold on eBay, so they send fake takedown letters to eBay to get auctions pulled that feature their merchandise.

The DMCA is (rightly) widely reviled for its suppression of scientific research and free speech. But as many of you who follow these issues know, the DMCA has its good side: the safe harbor that creates a standard protocol for copyright owners to protest infringing content, and for the posters to send counter-notifications when the takedown request is improper. While it's far from perfect, and though some content companies still sue when they don't like the way the notice-and-takedown system works, it's allowed online content hosting services from discussion forums to blogging sites to social networks to thrive with reduced fear of legal liability.

In the world of trademarks, there's no such protection, and eBay has implemented a policy that gives all the presumption of truth to the complaining trademark holder, without a way for sellers to respond. Ed Foster writes in the Infoworld article, "It's pretty scary to think there are actually circumstances where one would be better off if the DMCA applied, but that does seem to be the case here." Foster explains how eBay automatically pulls auctions that receive complaints without any independent investigation, and often terminates the seller's account. Worse, there is no way for the seller to appeal; eBay simply refers the seller to the trademark holder, who must withdraw their complaint before eBay will allow the auction to proceed.

And if the trademark holder refuses to respect the actual law about what is and is not trademark infringement? Then the eBay seller is out of luck.

Apparently, to the folks at the PTO, the idea of playing an ad while giving directory assistance information over the telephone is not obvious.

And 1-800-FREE-411, faced with competition from Microsoft's Tellme, Google, and others, has decided to follow a patent troll business model rather than an innovation model.

"We're not looking to be the only company that does [free 411], but if others want to do similar things and want to use the technology we came up with, they should pay a fair price," [Jingle Networks founder Scott] Kliger says.

Jingle's patent, which it bought from inventor Scott Wolmuth, is for a system that plays an ad related to the listing a caller requests on a free 411 service. So, according to Kliger, a rival service that examines a caller's request for, say, Domino's Pizza in Atlanta, identifies the category (pizza) and then plays an ad for Pizza Hut likely would infringe on the Jingle patent.

The most ironic part? While Kliger refers to "the technology we came up with," he's not the one who actually "invented" the idea according to the PTO - he just bought the patent from Wolmuth, who appears to be more of a telephone cybersquatter than an inventor.

YouTube and CNN are cosponsoring a Democratic debate on July 23rd, and a Republican debate on September 17th. YouTube has just put out a call for citizens to submit questions on video.

Can we get a question about information policy into the debate? What would be a good question? Something about the record companies suing tens of thousands of citizens, from 10-year-old girls to 66-year-old grandmothers? Something about national, affordable high-speed wireless Internet access? Net Neutrality? Internet radio?

If you have an idea for a good question, post your thoughts in the comments, or go all the way and submit a YouTube video (and then post the link in the comments!)

Jerimee left a comment on the Are You a Republican? post that raises a few interesting questions:

I have little interest in belonging to a PAC that would potentially support a Republican candidate. The GOP platform directly contradicts the stated goals of IPac.

People often say that they are unwilling to let any of their money support any Republicans; others say the same but for Democrats. We understand this dilemma. Protecting innovation and creativity is very important, but for many people other issues are important as well, such as the war, or taxes, or many others.

At the same time, the best members of Congress on our issues are members of both parties. Rick Boucher is the leading advocate for DMCA reform, but Joe Barton, the ranking Republican on House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a strong supporter.

What to do? IPac gives you several options for contributing. First, you can contribute directly to IPac. This gives us the most flexibility to use the money to help whatever candidates will have the most impact on freedom to create and innovate, but also may go to someone whose other positions you don't support. Second, when we make specific candidate endorsements, you can donate directly to one of those candidates via the IPac Web site - a practice called "bundling" so that your money goes specifically to that candidate, but they know that you contributed because of IPac's endorsement.

Coming up tomorrow: does the GOP platform directly contradict the goals of IPac?

A London company, Geomas, has a patent for locating businesses based on a city or ZIP code, and is suing Verizon's SuperPages. According to Wired News, the company's business model hinges upon either forcing companies to pay licensing fees, or suing them. (In other words, they aren't actually intending to build better technology, just to extort money from those who do). Techdirt is not amused, writing, "The company has apparently raised $20 million from some of the growing list of investment firms drooling over the innovation-killing patent-hoarding lawsuit rewards."

Meanwhile, BoingBoing reports on a Carfax patent for making a database of cars with clean titles and letting users search that database (more from EFF). Cory at BoingBoing writes,

Why does stupid stuff like this matter? It matters because every click and every idea is becoming someone's property. . . . and once those patents end up in the hands of patent trolls, it's open season on the firms and people who make great stuff. We all pay: we pay for the legal costs of fighting patent battles, built into the price of our stuff. We pay for the technologies that never come to market because of patent fears.

Well said, Cory.

This campaign season, Presidential and Congressional candidates will be taking positions on a range of issues, including policies that affect innovation and creativity. IPac will be encouraging them to make good decisions.

With so many issues, we want to focus on the most important ones. And we want to hear from you. We've created a survey with a collection of issues where IPac could devote time and energy. Please take a moment to give us your thoughts.

http://ipaction.org/survey.html

We want to hear from your friends as well - anyone who supports expanding freedom to create and innovate. Please pass this survey along and encourage others to give us their opinions too!

Mobile technology makers Qualcomm and Broadcom are engaged in a lengthy and expensive war over patents. A few weeks ago, Broadcom won a patent infringement suit against Qualcomm, and late last week, the US International Trade Commission blocked importation of phones with Qualcomm chips.

The articles only say that the infringed patents pertain to power-saving technology when signal is low. I can't easily find more detail to understand whether this patent is a really stupid one (like generically patenting a method for saving power during poor reception) or has more meat to it (like some innovative specific way to do so). But while Broadcom may be entitled to compensation for its innovation, completely blocking technology from reaching the market does not serve the public interest.

IPac believes that "Creators of ideas and inventions have the right to be compensated for their work, but not to . . . veto technological innovation." The ITC's ruling is blocking innovation. Qualcomm does the same thing; they hold and wield many patents that impede the spread of 3G technology.

The ultimate losers are consumers, who have to wait longer and pay more for new features on their phones.

Macmillan Publishing CEO Richard Charkin is confused about the difference between intellectual "property" - a nonexclusive good where one person's use does not directly detract from others - and real property, which only one person can possess. While both have value and both deserve legal protection, the protections need not necessarily be identical, because the goods themselves behave differently.

Charkin would rather gloss over that distinction, because he doesn't like the current laws in the United States which give information different protections from physical goods. To connect the two different types of goods, he stole a few real laptops belonging to Google, Inc. at a trade show, stating that no sign had been posted forbidding the stealing of the laptops, in a humorous though flawed analogy to Google BookSearch. Engadget has a good commentary on the stunt, with some interesting comments split between people confused as to the specifics of the Book Search Library Project and those correcting the record.

Whatever the merits of the lawsuit over Google Book Search (and most IPac members feel pretty strongly about that), scanning books falls under the purview of copyright law, while taking other people's laptops does not. As one commenter on the Engadget thread put it, "Wouldn't it have been more fitting for Charkin to have made a duplicate COPY of the laptop?" The book publishers, like the RIAA, MPAA, Viacom, and countless others frustrated with the balance struck by copyright law (even the very one-sided balance in their favor we have today) continue to push the comparison between their valuable information and physical property, in an attempt to convince the public that the two are the same. We can't let them get away with it.

Update: Lessig has a post that makes substantially the same point, with more good legal details.

IPac is a bipartisan organization, and some of our founding members vote for Republicans more than for Democrats. On the other hand, within the geek community, there are often two parties: liberals and libertarians.

If you're a libertarian, please voice your thoughts in the comments (such as on the Cato on Wu piece) - IPac is dedicated to pushing for issues where there is common ground between the liberals and libertarians, not just where one group or the other feels strongly.

If you are registered as a Republican, or think you are likely to vote for a Republican in the Presidential election, I'm particularly interested in hearing from you. Which Republican candidates are you most excited about? Right now we know little about their positions concerning information policy, but I'm interested in hearing about where our community is on the candidates in general so far. Speak up in the comments about which Republican contenders excite you the most. We will be reaching out to the Republican campaigns as well as the Democratic ones to identify how they feel about information policy issues.

We know that content companies often use lawsuits to stifle innovative technologies. We know that in many cases, these technologies actually benefit those who resist them. NPR's All Things Considered reports many publishers are discovering that Google Book Search is good for business after all.

Major League Baseball may have realized that following in the RIAA's footsteps and becoming one of the most hated companies in America wouldn't be so good for their core business of making people watch baseball. According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), MLB wants to avoid fighting in court. MLB Advanced Media CEO Bob Bowman is quoted as saying, "The way to win this is with good content and good technology, not with lawyers. I think the music industry proved that to everybody."

We agree - legal innovation (which Slingbox most likely is) should be rewarded, not threatened out of existence with lawsuits. The most heartening part of this story is that we've made suing a costly tactic. The huge public backlash against the RIAA, the negative press about MLB last week, and the pressure from free culture groups have all made MLB think twice about pitching a lawsuit over the plate.

The Consumerist ran a contest earlier this year to pick the "Worst Company in America." The winner: the RIAA. Now the Consumerist is taking them on.

They've compiled a list of 50 members of Congress who take money from the RIAA. And there are also several interesting comments.

This list is just a start, for several reasons. Many more Congresspeople get money from the RIAA besides these 50. These numbers only count very recent contributions - some members have been taking money for years or decades. And just taking the money doesn't mean the member will make bad votes. Certainly they are influenced, but as one commenter pointed out, Jay Inslee is on the list yet is leading the way on the Internet Radio Equality Act, of which the RIAA is not a fan.

Still, kudos for the Consumerist for generating broad awareness of the RIAA's corrupting influence in Congress!

Tim Wu wrote an article recently in Forbes, arguing for the creation of a "cellular Carterfone" rule, allowing any electronics maker to build a phone that interoperates with a mobile network and allowing any consumer to buy that phone and use it on their network, without the mobile carriers blocking them and restricting the types of available phones.

The Cato Institute has a response, which makes a few interesting points and a few bad points.

Read more...The interesting question is: is the market for innovation broken in mobile devices today? On the one hand, carriers offer very limited phone choices, and notoriously require the manufacturers to cripple various features like call timers or GPS. The small oligopoly of major carriers appears to be locking out innovation. On the other hand, it is possible to buy (though it is more expensive) a non-carrier-sanctioned GPS phone, and use it on T-Mobile and AT&T/Cingular. Also, people aren't running away from Verizon in droves despite prohibiting users from installing third-party applications on its phones (except for Treos and Blackberries).

Is the market simply not providing these choices because consumers aren't interested in them enough to pay for them, or is the market not providing these choices because the carriers make it too hard for startups to provide the service?

The Cato paper also argues that regulations such as Carterfone or CableCARD never work because the carriers resist complying, and the FCC eventually gives up. A prime example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required phone companies to allow resellers to offer DSL over their networks. Many startups sprouted to offer service, static IPs, and other added value, but the Bells provided such slow and often cripped service to the resellers, with poor enforcement options, that consumers could not partake of these options and the FCC gave up trying to enforce the provision.

It's true that such regulations often encounter stiff opposition from the monopoly carriers. But to argue that we therefore should never impose any requirements on the telcos is letting them win when they break the law. Lawbreakers by definition are not complying with the laws they are breaking. We don't give up on outlawing car theft just because car thieves continue to resist complying with that rule.

We can reasonably argue whether a particular requirement is prudent or imprudent, but the telephone companies have a monopoly, and basic economics teaches that monopolies need some level of regulation. If we can create a market where telephone companies have sufficient competition and can no longer wield market power to the detriment of consumers, then regulations will become unnecessary. But the rules they are resisting, like the DSL rules or Carterfone, are precisely those meant to ensure competition and a functioning market. If they resist, we can't simply throw up our hands and forget about trying to create a market.

What do you think about Tim Wu's argument, or the Cato paper?

Senator Hillary Clinton came out with an "Innovation Agenda" yesterday. Unlike IPac's innovation issues, her agenda focuses on government funding for scientific research, like increasing NSF and NIH grant funding, funding more alternative energy development, etc. What do you think about these issues? Do you think they are good plans or bad plans? Are there any topics in this arena IPac should also promote as part of our "innovation agenda", or should we steer clear of such issues?

Clinton does address broadband, though also from a funding standpoint:

Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. . . . Hillary Clinton proposes that the federal government provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She also proposes financial support for state and local broadband initiatives. Various municipal broadband initiatives are underway around the country to accelerate the deployment of high speed networks. The initiatives are useful for education, commerce, technology development, and the efficient provision of municipal services.

One thing she doesn't mention is how telephone companies have lobbied extensively - often successfully - to block municipal broadband. I hope Senator Clinton is opposed to such anti-innovation behavior. IPac will be pushing Senator Clinton and all Presidential candidates to talk about how we can ensure copyrights, patents, and broadband and wireless gatekeepers don't needlessly hinder innovation.