Learn from the mistakes of others

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Federal judge extends Microsoft antitrust settlement until 2009
Joe Shaulis at 1:32 PM ET

[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] must abide by the terms of its 2002 antitrust settlement [final judgment, PDF] with the US Justice Department [official website] through November 2009, a federal judge said Wednesday. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [official profile] approved the DOJ's two-year extension request [JURIST report; joint status report], which Microsoft had agreed to, during a status conference in US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website].

The DOJ said the extension was necessary [press release] because Microsoft has been slow to improve the technical documentation it provides to licensees of communication protocols for the Windows operating system. As part of the extension, Microsoft has said that it plans to create an "interoperability lab" [press release] where licensees can test and de-bug their protocols with help from Microsoft engineers.

CNET News has more.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Federal judge extends Microsoft antitrust settlement until 2009
Joe Shaulis at 1:32 PM ET

[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; JURIST news archive] must abide by the terms of its 2002 antitrust settlement [final judgment, PDF] with the US Justice Department [official website] through November 2009, a federal judge said Wednesday. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [official profile] approved the DOJ's two-year extension request [JURIST report; joint status report], which Microsoft had agreed to, during a status conference in US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website].

The DOJ said the extension was necessary [press release] because Microsoft has been slow to improve the technical documentation it provides to licensees of communication protocols for the Windows operating system. As part of the extension, Microsoft has said that it plans to create an "interoperability lab" [press release] where licensees can test and de-bug their protocols with help from Microsoft engineers.

CNET News has more.

Thursday, May 18, 2006
Massachusetts high court rejects tobacco company 'unreasonable use' defense
Jaime Jansen at 4:34 PM ET

[JURIST] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [official website] ruled [text; oral argument video] Thursday that tobacco giant Philip Morris Inc. [corporate website] cannot avoid liability in a wrongful death lawsuit by claiming that smokers should know that cigarettes are dangerous. Brenda Haglund had sued the tobacco company for the wrongful death of her husband. The court said that her lawsuit could proceed because the so-called “personal choice defense" can only be used if a consumer used a product in an unreasonable way. The court ruled unanimously that “because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes.” The court added, however, that it would not block the use of the personal choice defense in every case related to smoking, and would allow it when a person’s behavior was “overwhelmingly unreasonable,” such as when a person with emphysema begins smoking.

The defense has been the tobacco industry’s most successful defense to date in wrongful death lawsuits.

AP has more.

Thursday, May 18, 2006
Massachusetts high court rejects tobacco company 'unreasonable use' defense
Jaime Jansen at 4:34 PM ET

[JURIST] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [official website] ruled [text; oral argument video] Thursday that tobacco giant Philip Morris Inc. [corporate website] cannot avoid liability in a wrongful death lawsuit by claiming that smokers should know that cigarettes are dangerous. Brenda Haglund had sued the tobacco company for the wrongful death of her husband. The court said that her lawsuit could proceed because the so-called “personal choice defense" can only be used if a consumer used a product in an unreasonable way. The court ruled unanimously that “because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes.” The court added, however, that it would not block the use of the personal choice defense in every case related to smoking, and would allow it when a person’s behavior was “overwhelmingly unreasonable,” such as when a person with emphysema begins smoking.

The defense has been the tobacco industry’s most successful defense to date in wrongful death lawsuits.

AP has more.

Thursday, May 18, 2006
Judge dismisses el-Masri CIA rendition suit on state secrets grounds
Bernard Hibbitts at 7:18 PM ET

[JURIST] A federal judge Thursday dismissed a highly-publicized lawsuit [materials] brought by the ACLU against CIA Director George Tenet and other agency officials and employees on behalf of Khalid El-Masri [JURIST news archive], a German national who alleges [el-Masri statement] that he was kidnapped in Macedonia in 2003 in an instance of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive], held by the CIA in Afghanistan where he was subjected to inhumane conditions and coercive interrogation, and finally released in 2004 and dropped off in Albania without ever being charged. Government attorneys argued [JURIST report] last week before US District Judge T.S. Ellis that the suit could jeopardize US national security interests by exposing CIA methods and activities to the general public, and presented a classified affidavit [public version, PDF text] by former CIA director Porter Goss asserting the executive privilege of the president to protect US state and military secrets. In his decision, Ellis acknowledged that dismissing the suit "deprives el-Masri of an American judicial forum for vindicating his claims", but insisted that "el-Masri's private interests must give way to the national interest...".

The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it has been invoked more than 20 times since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and at least five times in the past year, counting the el-Masri case. El-Masri, a father of five, had sought $75,000 in damages, which his lawyer had suggested could be dropped in exchange for a personal apology from Tenet.

Reuters has more.

Thursday, May 18, 2006
Judge dismisses el-Masri CIA rendition suit on state secrets grounds
Bernard Hibbitts at 7:18 PM ET

[JURIST] A federal judge Thursday dismissed a highly-publicized lawsuit [materials] brought by the ACLU against CIA Director George Tenet and other agency officials and employees on behalf of Khalid El-Masri [JURIST news archive], a German national who alleges [el-Masri statement] that he was kidnapped in Macedonia in 2003 in an instance of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive], held by the CIA in Afghanistan where he was subjected to inhumane conditions and coercive interrogation, and finally released in 2004 and dropped off in Albania without ever being charged. Government attorneys argued [JURIST report] last week before US District Judge T.S. Ellis that the suit could jeopardize US national security interests by exposing CIA methods and activities to the general public, and presented a classified affidavit [public version, PDF text] by former CIA director Porter Goss asserting the executive privilege of the president to protect US state and military secrets. In his decision, Ellis acknowledged that dismissing the suit "deprives el-Masri of an American judicial forum for vindicating his claims", but insisted that "el-Masri's private interests must give way to the national interest...".

The US Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case United States v. Reynolds [opinion text]. The government invoked the privilege [News Media & The Law commentary] in only four cases between 1953 and 1976, but it has been invoked more than 20 times since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and at least five times in the past year, counting the el-Masri case. El-Masri, a father of five, had sought $75,000 in damages, which his lawyer had suggested could be dropped in exchange for a personal apology from Tenet.

Reuters has more.

Radio surprised at Government copyright decision

The commercial radio industry has expressed surprise and concern at the Commonwealth Attorney-General's proposal to lift the statutory cap on broadcasting fees paid by radio broadcasters to record companies.

Joan Warner, CEO of Commercial Radio Australia, said: "This could lead to spiraling payments by radio stations to record companies - and we are especially surprised as we were told by the Government only a couple of months ago that it was not inclined to change the cap at this time.

According to Ms Warner, Commercial Radio Australia is concerned that the Commonwealth Government has sided with "the multi-billion dollar global record industry" over Australian radio at a time when costs are rising and revenues are unstable for the local industry, especially regional broadcasters. Furthermore, commercial radio stations have commenced planning for the digital rollout, at considerable expense, of superior radio services to all Australians using digital radio technology.

Ms Warner said: "It is also common knowledge that the advertising market for radio has been softer and unstable, and, as a result of Government policy, there are more radio stations than ever before competing for a shrinking advertising dollar."

The commercial radio industry, as part of the consultation on the statutory cap, has provided the Government with a significant amount of detailed argument and rationale for retaining the cap.

"It appears the Government has, at this point, chosen to ignore the needs and concerns of the Australian radio industry," said Ms Warner. "However, we are pleased to note that there will be further consultation on the legislation. We will be seeking meetings with relevant Ministers, as well as with local Liberal and National Party members, during the consultation period to restate the case for the Australian radio industry".
16 May, 2006

Radio surprised at Government copyright decision

The commercial radio industry has expressed surprise and concern at the Commonwealth Attorney-General's proposal to lift the statutory cap on broadcasting fees paid by radio broadcasters to record companies.

Joan Warner, CEO of Commercial Radio Australia, said: "This could lead to spiraling payments by radio stations to record companies - and we are especially surprised as we were told by the Government only a couple of months ago that it was not inclined to change the cap at this time.

According to Ms Warner, Commercial Radio Australia is concerned that the Commonwealth Government has sided with "the multi-billion dollar global record industry" over Australian radio at a time when costs are rising and revenues are unstable for the local industry, especially regional broadcasters. Furthermore, commercial radio stations have commenced planning for the digital rollout, at considerable expense, of superior radio services to all Australians using digital radio technology.

Ms Warner said: "It is also common knowledge that the advertising market for radio has been softer and unstable, and, as a result of Government policy, there are more radio stations than ever before competing for a shrinking advertising dollar."

The commercial radio industry, as part of the consultation on the statutory cap, has provided the Government with a significant amount of detailed argument and rationale for retaining the cap.

"It appears the Government has, at this point, chosen to ignore the needs and concerns of the Australian radio industry," said Ms Warner. "However, we are pleased to note that there will be further consultation on the legislation. We will be seeking meetings with relevant Ministers, as well as with local Liberal and National Party members, during the consultation period to restate the case for the Australian radio industry".
16 May, 2006

Cth - AG says major copyright reforms strike balance

Well, of course he says that. He approved them.

Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, announced on 14/05/2006, significant copyright reforms which make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates.

Fairer for us, tougher for the bad guys. Sounds good. But wait ...

Mr Ruddock said: "These are commonsense amendments which will maintain Australia's copyright laws as the best in the world for the benefit of our creators and other copyright owners and for the many Australians who enjoy their creative works," Mr Ruddock said.[Sorry I had to delete one of them]

Wait 'till you see these common-sense amendments.

The changes:

Make it legal for people to tape their favourite TV or radio program and play it at another time;

But only once. You can only play your recording once. Then you're supposed to delete it. Oh dear Goddesses.

And yes, Australians were never legally allowed to tape TV shows with their shiny VCRs.

Legalise "format shifting" of material such as music, newspapers, books - meaning people can put their CD collection onto IPods or MP3 players;

Again, this means you can copy from your CD to your iPod. But you can't then back your iPod files up on your PC. Unless you "format-shift" them into another file format. That'd be OK.

You can loan your CD to your mate, but no way can you share that MP3 ... that'd make you a PIRATE™

Provide new exceptions allowing schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes;

That's just so generous, Mr Ruddock.

Still, it's not the same as the "Fair Use" provisions enjoyed by such institutions in, oh, the USA.

Provide new exceptions for people with disabilities to allow access to copyright materials;

Holy Crap Batman! Blind people want to read? No!

Allow the use of copyright material for parody or satire, and;

... what can I say?

Provide new enforcement measures to combat copyright piracy including on-the-spot fines.

Are we going to do the same for car thieves?

Research also will be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology on the nature and the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.

Because doing the research before you change the laws is just too inconvenient. [Actually, he has further reforms in the pipeline. The AIC brief is to help tweak them.]

"Copyright is important and should be respected," Mr Ruddock said. "That is why the Government is updating our laws to keep pace with technology. Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates. Copyright pirates should be not treated like everyday consumers".

If it's so important, why make such a mockery of it? And us?

Are Copyright pirates as cool as real sea pirates might have been?

Dear Goddesses near Hel, I just might have to do the PhD I went to Law School for in the first place ... Dear Gods, why do smacktards have so much power over stuff they not only don't understand, but don't seem to care about anyway ...

Cth - AG says major copyright reforms strike balance

Well, of course he says that. He approved them.

Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, announced on 14/05/2006, significant copyright reforms which make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates.

Fairer for us, tougher for the bad guys. Sounds good. But wait ...

Mr Ruddock said: "These are commonsense amendments which will maintain Australia's copyright laws as the best in the world for the benefit of our creators and other copyright owners and for the many Australians who enjoy their creative works," Mr Ruddock said.[Sorry I had to delete one of them]

Wait 'till you see these common-sense amendments.

The changes:

Make it legal for people to tape their favourite TV or radio program and play it at another time;

But only once. You can only play your recording once. Then you're supposed to delete it. Oh dear Goddesses.

And yes, Australians were never legally allowed to tape TV shows with their shiny VCRs.

Legalise "format shifting" of material such as music, newspapers, books - meaning people can put their CD collection onto IPods or MP3 players;

Again, this means you can copy from your CD to your iPod. But you can't then back your iPod files up on your PC. Unless you "format-shift" them into another file format. That'd be OK.

You can loan your CD to your mate, but no way can you share that MP3 ... that'd make you a PIRATE™

Provide new exceptions allowing schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes;

That's just so generous, Mr Ruddock.

Still, it's not the same as the "Fair Use" provisions enjoyed by such institutions in, oh, the USA.

Provide new exceptions for people with disabilities to allow access to copyright materials;

Holy Crap Batman! Blind people want to read? No!

Allow the use of copyright material for parody or satire, and;

... what can I say?

Provide new enforcement measures to combat copyright piracy including on-the-spot fines.

Are we going to do the same for car thieves?

Research also will be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology on the nature and the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.

Because doing the research before you change the laws is just too inconvenient. [Actually, he has further reforms in the pipeline. The AIC brief is to help tweak them.]

"Copyright is important and should be respected," Mr Ruddock said. "That is why the Government is updating our laws to keep pace with technology. Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates. Copyright pirates should be not treated like everyday consumers".

If it's so important, why make such a mockery of it? And us?

Are Copyright pirates as cool as real sea pirates might have been?

Dear Goddesses near Hel, I just might have to do the PhD I went to Law School for in the first place ... Dear Gods, why do smacktards have so much power over stuff they not only don't understand, but don't seem to care about anyway ...

ID Card - ALP says Minister must answer growing list of smartcard concerns

The Federal Opposition said Commonwealth Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, has to address the growing list of fears and concerns held by industry experts and public advocates about Smartcard cost blowouts and privacy.

In a statement issued 17/05/2006, Federal Shadow Minister for Human Services, Kelvin Thomson, said: “It seems that with every day that passes, another industry expert raises serious concerns about the Smartcard project, and every day that passes the Government continues to ignore them. Minister Hockey must realise that charging ahead without public consultation and without listening to the experts is a recipe for disaster".

Mr Thomson claimed the former head of the Smartcard Technology Taskforce, James Kelaher, resigned because he did not want to be part of the "smartcard disaster". Mr Thomson said news that Assistant Secretary and Smartcard Project Leader, Suzanne Roche had resigned, is further evidence that the Smartcard project is in "disarray."

According to Mr Thomson, Siemens Vice President, Martin Praetorius, with more than 20 years experience working with Smartcard technology, told an e-Government forum last week that the $1.1 billion budget could be easily tripled because the "complexity of the project is greatly underestimated”.

British e-Government expert William Heath told the same forum that a single identifier card could actually increase rather than decrease the instance of fraud as: “It is an extremely courageous step to put all your identification, all the different departments, on to one identifier.”

Mr Thomson said that fraudster, Frank Abagnale, the real life criminal behind Catch Me if You Can, told BBC radio that the UK ID card would be replicated within six months.

“Minster Hockey must start responding to these serious public and industry concerns this week," Mr Thomson concluded. "The public cannot afford more major project budget blowouts, nor can we afford to have our privacy compromised".

18 May, 2006

ID Card - ALP says Minister must answer growing list of smartcard concerns

The Federal Opposition said Commonwealth Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, has to address the growing list of fears and concerns held by industry experts and public advocates about Smartcard cost blowouts and privacy.

In a statement issued 17/05/2006, Federal Shadow Minister for Human Services, Kelvin Thomson, said: “It seems that with every day that passes, another industry expert raises serious concerns about the Smartcard project, and every day that passes the Government continues to ignore them. Minister Hockey must realise that charging ahead without public consultation and without listening to the experts is a recipe for disaster".

Mr Thomson claimed the former head of the Smartcard Technology Taskforce, James Kelaher, resigned because he did not want to be part of the "smartcard disaster". Mr Thomson said news that Assistant Secretary and Smartcard Project Leader, Suzanne Roche had resigned, is further evidence that the Smartcard project is in "disarray."

According to Mr Thomson, Siemens Vice President, Martin Praetorius, with more than 20 years experience working with Smartcard technology, told an e-Government forum last week that the $1.1 billion budget could be easily tripled because the "complexity of the project is greatly underestimated”.

British e-Government expert William Heath told the same forum that a single identifier card could actually increase rather than decrease the instance of fraud as: “It is an extremely courageous step to put all your identification, all the different departments, on to one identifier.”

Mr Thomson said that fraudster, Frank Abagnale, the real life criminal behind Catch Me if You Can, told BBC radio that the UK ID card would be replicated within six months.

“Minster Hockey must start responding to these serious public and industry concerns this week," Mr Thomson concluded. "The public cannot afford more major project budget blowouts, nor can we afford to have our privacy compromised".

18 May, 2006