Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Cybernaut

Is the information highway moving too fast? If you don’t remember what the information was or why it was important to you, the answer is yes. Today, everybody knows everything about everything, except what’s really going on.

Is the information highway moving too fast? If you don’t remember what the information was or why it was important to you, the answer is yes.

Today, everybody knows everything about everything, except what’s really going on. We are constantly bombarded with news briefs and factoids, the who, what, where and when and why’s of this world, but without any context or relativity within the larger picture.

The Police said it best "Too much information, running through my brain/ too much information, driving me insane." And that was written in the days before everyone and their dog was connected to the Internet.

Trends, events, businesses and people are here today, gone tomorrow in a digital blur. And it’s too bad our memories are not as expansive or accessible as our hard drives.

The problem is that the real world, steeped in its bureaucracies, can’t keep up with our appetite for new news, and as a result the issue gets old before the story is complete.

For that reason I thought I’d revisit a few important Internet-related news stories that went from the front page to the back page, and that are far from over.

Microsoft teaches America the meaning of "Antitrust"

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.asp

Remember the whole Microsoft antitrust case? The judge who ordered Microsoft be split into two different companies, one for the Windows operating system, and one for Office software?

Remember Microsoft’s vow to appeal the decision to the highest power, threatening to move its head office to Canada if the outcome didn’t go their way?

This issue is still going strong. Microsoft is still one company, and still producing compatible software and the software platforms to run it on. On Feb. 2, Microsoft submitted a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals outlining the basis for the appeal, and a schedule for oral arguments.

Microsoft’s lawyers will be back in court at the end of February to present those arguments, essentially claiming that the outcome of the original trial was tainted by improper procedure and a biased judge.

Unless you have some Microsoft stock, you’re probably wondering why you should care. Here it is – if you own a computer, use a computer at work, home or school, the decision is going to affect you. If you’ve never used a computer in your life, it’s still going to affect you – the precedent could be far-reaching enough to affect the way every industry conducts business as usual.

Right now some 90 per cent of the world’s PCs use Microsoft Windows, Office or both. I don’t know if you’ve priced these programs lately, but they are generally quite expensive to own and upgrade, but you were probably spared that expense because they were included in the price of your computer.

The current status quo discourages competition by limiting who gets to use the Windows platform and leaving buyers very little choice but to cough up for more Microsoft products and upgrades. This goes against the very definition of a free market economy, and may even be construed as anti-American.

If Microsoft is forced to share their proprietary code, the foundation which all of their software is built upon, then other companies will be able to turn around and offer nearly identical – and compatible – programs for a fraction of the price.

From a buyer’s perspective this may appear to be a good thing. From Microsoft’s perspective it’s a slap in the face of progress. And they have a point.

As a reward for their research and development, pharmaceutical companies are given up to 10 years to profit exclusively from a patented product before other companies can copy their formula or method. Computer companies have no such guarantees, although they also invest significant time and money in research and development.

At the root of the matter is how far you can go to promote, protect and profit from intellectual property. It’s the same issue that’s affecting Napster, just the other side of the coin.

If Microsoft wins its case, it will set an important precedent for the technology industry and industry as a whole. Companies will be able to protect their copyrights with more authority than ever before.

If they lose, same thing. There will be price wars, copycat software, and in the end, a wider range of lower quality products to choose from. When you can’t copyright your intellectual property, you tend to think a lot less.

Napster playing a new tune

www.napster.com

In the few years that it has been in operation, Napster.com has signed up some 50 million users worldwide. If you’ve been living in the cellar for the past three years, Napster is a kind of online swap meet where music lovers can exchange MP3 songs – MP3 being a new digital music format and compression protocol that allows users to shrink the amount of disk space required for a song by about a fifth. Anyone can download a program to convert their music into MP3 format, and anyone can share their library of MP3’s through Napster.

While is was a music lover’s dream, it was a media company’s nightmare. For example, the Tragically Hip’s last effort, Music@Work, was somehow leaked to an MP3 enthusiast, and was all over the Internet months before the album was even released. For people who can’t tell the difference between CD quality and MP3 quality (MP3 shrinks sound files by eliminating all but the dominant sound in the music) it was as good as getting the album for free.

Here’s where it gets complicated. Napster argues that the service it provides will ultimately increase exposure for music and musicians the same way a mixed tape from a friend would. Music companies argue that Napster is an online copyright violation, enabling the free exchange of music without royalties.

On Feb. 12, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the music companies, potentially shutting Napster down for good. Napster is still up and running, but only until District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel can retool her injunction (which the appellate court called overbroad).

This ruling came at a time when Napster was in the process of initiating a user-pay system – say $15 a month for all the music you can download. Once the money started coming in Napster has said that it would work out an agreement to share those profits with artists and recording companies based on the popularity of the MP3 downloads.

MP3 is not going anywhere. More than 250 million songs were downloaded in the weekend before the court’s decision, so the music is still out there somewhere. And as long as the music is out there, MP3 will continue to be the thorn in the side of the music industry, and the feather in the cap of music lovers.