24 February 2009

Towards a Flash free YouTube killer (was: Adobe Flash penetration more like 50%)


A couple of days ago I wrote about Why Adobe Flash penetration is more like 50% than 99%, which resulted in a bunch of comments as well as a fair bit of discussion elsewhere including commentary from Adobe's own John Dowdell. It's good to see some healthy discussion on this topic (though it's a shame to see some branding it "more flash hate" and an AC poster asking "How much did M$ pay you for this").

Anyway everyone likes a good demonstration so I figured why not create a proof-of-concept YouTube killer that uses HTML 5's video tag?

Knowing that around 20% of my visitors already have a subset of HTML 5 support (either via Safari/WebKit or Firefox 3.1 beta), and that this figure will jump to over 50% shortly after Firefox 3.1 drops (over 50% of my readers use Firefox and over 90% of them run the most recent versions), I would already be considering taking advantage of the new VIDEO tag were I to add videos to the site (even though, as a Google Apps Premier Edition user I already have a white label version of YouTube at http://video.samj.net/).

Selecting the demo video was easy - my brother, Michael Johns, did a guest performance on American Idol last Wednesday and as per usual it's already popped up on YouTube (complete with a HD version). Normally YouTube use Flash's FLV codec but for HD they sensibly opted for H.264 which is supported by Safari (which supports anything QuickTime supports - including Ogg Vorbis for users with Perian installed). Getting the video file itself is just a case of browsing to the YouTube page, going to Window->Activity and double clicking the digitally signed link that looks something like 'http://v4.cache.googlevideo.com/videoplayback' which should result in the video.mp4 file being downloaded (though now Google are offering paid downloads they're working hard to stop unsanctioned downloading).

On the other hand Firefox 3.1 currently only supports Ogg Vorbis for licensing/patent reasons as even Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) licensing is unreasonable and discriminatory for free and open source software. Unfortunately the W3C working group infamously removed a recommendation that implementors 'should' support Ogg Vorbis and Theora for audio and video respectively. Currently a codec recommendation is conspicuously absent from the HTML 5 working draft. So what's a developer to do but make both Ogg and H.264 versions available? Fortunately transcoding MP4 to OGG (and vice versa) is easy enough with VLC, resulting in a similar quality but 10% smaller file (video.ogg).

The HTML code itself is quite straightforward. It demonstrates:
  • A body onLoad function to switch to Ogg for Firefox users
  • YouTube object fallback for unsupported browsers (which in turn falls back to embed)
  • A simple JavaScript Play/Pause control (which could easily be fleshed out to a slider, etc.)
  • A simple JavaScript event handler to show an alert when the video finishes playing
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Towards a Flash free YouTube killer...</title> 
</head>

<!-- Basic test for Firefox switches to Ogg Theora  -->
<!-- TTest could be arbitrarily complex and/or run on the server side -->
<body onLoad="if (/Firefox/.test(navigator.userAgent)){ document.getElementsByTagName('video')[0].src = 'video.ogg'; }">
<h1>Michael Johns &amp; Carly Smithson - The Letter</h1>
<p>(Live At American Idol 02/18/2009) HD
(from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkTCFo8XfAc">YouTube</a>)</p>

<!-- Supported browsers will use the video code and ignore the rest -->
<video src="video.mp4" autoplay="true" width="630" height="380">
<!-- If video tag is unsupported by your browser legacy code used -->
<object width="630" height="380">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LkTCFo8XfAc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D22"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LkTCFo8XfAc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D22"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"
width="630" height="380"></embed>
</object>
</video>

<!-- Here's a script to give some basic playback control -->
<script>
function playPause() {
var myVideo = document.getElementsByTagName('video')[0];
if (myVideo.paused)
myVideo.play();
else
myVideo.pause();
}
</script>
<p><input type=button onclick="playPause()" value="Play/Pause"></p>

<!-- Here's an event handler which will tell us when the video finishes -->
<script>
myVideo.addEventListener('ended', function () {
alert('video playback finished')
} );
</script>
<p>By <a href="http://samj.net/">Sam Johnston</a> of
<a href="http://www.aos.net.au/">Australian Online Solutions</a></p>
</body>
</html>

This file (index.html) and the two video files above (video.mp4 and video.ogg) are then uploaded to Amazon S3 (at http://media.samj.net/) and made available via Amazon CloudFront content delivery network (at http://media.cdn.samj.net/). And finally you can see for yourself (bearing in mind that to keep the code clean no attempts were made to check the ready states so either download the files locally or be patient!):

Towards a Flash free YouTube killer...

23 February 2009

Lessons learnt the likely loss of the "netbook" trademark

Reposted from the Save the Netbooks Blog:

There's a number of things that Psion could have done to avoid losing the "netbook" trademark.

For a start, trademarks relate to a specific class of goods or services. The "netbook" mark #75215401 is just for "laptop computers", as in the devices themselves. When Psion stop selling the devices (either permanently or by not shipping for 3+ years) then the trademark should self destruct.

Apple's iBook trademark #75584233 on the other hand covers "computers, computer hardware, computer peripherals and users manuals sold therewith" so they're good to go for as long as they offer peripherals. That said, in this kb article the definition of "obsolete" is quite clear:
"Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued all hardware service for obsolete products with no exceptions. Service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. 
Aside from some quirks realting to California laws a "Petition for Cancellation" of the iBook trademark on the basis of abandonment could well be successful today.

Had they have held a stock of Netbooks and/or Netbook Pros for (restricted?) sale after manufacturing stopped may have been another way Psion could have avoided abandonment. Indeed not listing the devices as "discontinued" on their web site may have given them 3 years grace (e.g. through at least August 2009). Even an early announcement of a new netBook might have held off the dogs too.

An administrative error (that is, including a 'Netbook' rather than a 'Netbook Pro' brochure in the 2006 Combined Declararation of Use and Incontestability) led to Dell's claim of fraud that may well be upheld.

But the ommission that undoubtedly caused the most damage was not acting quickly when others started using the mark. There are many ways to detect such usage - a Google Alert for 'netbook' or a Domain Tools alert for domain registrations would have resulted in an email alert within hours of the first [ab]uses and they could have acted quickly to stave off the onslaught.

Of course then the "netbook" industry wouldn't be what it is today... the devices would have been called something like "webbooks" and none of this ever would have happened.

22 February 2009

Why Adobe Flash penetration is more like 50% than 99%

Slashdot discussed PC PRO's "99% Flash Player Penetration – Too Good to be True?" article today which prompted me to explain why I have always been dubious of Adobe's claim that "Flash content reaches 99.0% of Internet viewers". Here's the claim verbatim:
Adobe ® Flash ® Player is the world's most pervasive software platform, used by over 2 million professionals and reaching 99.0% of Internet-enabled desktops in mature markets as well as a wide range of devices.
The methodology section asks more questions than it answers but fortunately we don't even need to go into details about how 3-6% margins of error can lead to a 99% outcome. Here's why the claim is bogus:
Mobile devices
"Internet viewers" clearly includes users of mobile devices like the iPhone and yet they are conveniently only counting "desktops in mature markets". Fortunately this little chestnut which has just been removed from Adobe's own Mobile & Devices Develoer Center is still available in the Google cache:
So by Adobe's own reckoning there's about 1 billion PCs to 3 billion mobile devices. That reconciles with other research, but the latest news is that we've just passed 4 billion (or 60% of the entire global population today). Let's be conservative anyway and use Adobe's own figures. So that's 1 billion PCs to 3 billion mobiles.
99% of 25% is still less than 25% overall...
but that's not really fair because many (most?) of those mobile devices aren't yet Internet enabled. Well every iPhone sells with Internet and none of them have Flash so those 13 million Internet-enabled mobile devices already knock nearly a point and a half off their 99% claim. Google's Android's just getting started and its first incarnation (the T-Mobile G1) has already sold a million devices with many more to come this year.
The iPhone alone knocks it down to 97.5%
On the other hand, Flash Lite will have shipped on a billion devices by March so:
1 billion PCs + 1 billion mobiles = 2 billion out of 4 billion total = 50%
As if it's not enough for Adobe that large segments of the mobile device market are currently out of their reach they have another two emerging technologies which will erode their penetration rates:
HTML 5
Features like the "video" and "canvas" tags, timed media playback, offline storage, messaging/networking, etc. (which have previously only been possible via 3rd party plugins) will soon be supported natively by the browser. I'm a W3C Invited Expert in the HTML 5 working group (primarily monitoring the web application developments) and it's great to see demos like offline mobile Gmail already starting to appear. It will also be nice not having to download and install a plugin to view video content in sites like YouTube, Facebook and MySpace (arguably the main reason why anyone would install Flash in the first place).
Netbooks
Over 10 million of Netbooks ("Internet Notebooks") shipped last year and another 35 million are expected to ship this year. So far Flash penetration hasn't been too bad with Windows/Linux on x86 devices but the next generation will run a myriad operating systems on alternatives to x86 like ARM. Flash will certainly have trouble maintaining its usual penetration rates, and will have to do so with less incentive to install thanks to HTML 5 support in the browsers.

In summary, Flash has its place. It is constantly evolving and there are things that it does that can be difficult or impossible to do otherwise (e.g. video capture). However, if you choose to deploy Flash then you are choosing to exclude some potential users and it's hard to say how many as it depends on many factors (your specific audience's demographics, devices, locations, etc.). Adobe's figures are not perfect so the only way to reliably know how many users you are turning away is to measure it after the fact. If you don't need these advanced features then opt for a Native Web Application, or confine Flash objects to pages where it is absolutely required.

Update: There's a handful of (mostly) developers discussing this article over at Y Combinator's hacker news, generally in defense of Adobe's figures (including a comment from Adobe's own John Dowell). This is not "more flash hate", rather an observation that things that seem "too good to be true" usually are. Take a quick glance at this screenshot from Adobe.com:

What does it tell you? Did you bother to read beyond the title? Would you have any doubts about using Flash for your site after seeing it? Should you?

Is an iPhone user really not an "Internet viewer" when iPhones ship with a full-featured browser and a data plan? Does "desktop" mean desktop computer or desktop metaphor? Are laptops and netbooks included? What happens if you drop the "mature markets" restriction? What does "over 2 million professionals" really mean anyway? How do the numbers for "real world" tests compare to the survey results?

Basically this clever marketing exercise (which no doubt overcomes the #1 objection to Flash in many instances) raises more questions than it answers.

Update: See also Towards a Flash free YouTube killer...

20 February 2009

Conspiracy theories about Intel's role in the "netbook" craze

The last few days working on Save the Netbooks have been enlightening to say the least. It's surprising that something as mundane as a moniker for a generic class of laptops can be an outlet for the conspiracy theorists, but Mark "Sumocat" Sumimoto (the "Father of Ink Blogging" - which is interesting in itself) at least has got it in his head that Intel created the "netbook" moniker as "part of a move to undercut the OLPC project's goal of supplying laptops to children in third-world countries".

To his credit (and unlike most conspiracy theorists), Sumocat presents detailed (if flawed) arguments along with his claims like the Google Trends data on "netbook" usage. This correlates well with things like the February 2008 Bloomberg article where an Intel marketing drone gushed about their plans for "netbooks" that ran through CEO level, followed immediately by a fairly candid blog post which spoke about netbooks generically as a category rather than an Intel product. It predates, however, their full involvement later in the year through with things like the registration of netbook.com. Remember that Psion Teklogix waited until December before unleashing the hounds.
The theory culminates in a post entitled "How to Kill a Trademark" which focuses on prior use of the term "netbook" and suggests that if you "wield enough power [you] can bypass trademark protection", as per Intel's "deliberate campaign to genericize another entity's trademarked name". The fatal flaw with this theory is that a trademark requires continuous use and this one had been abandoned, both instantaneously and indefinitely by way of the End-of-Life notice (meaning "vendor will no longer be marketing, selling, or promoting a particular product") and for longer than the 3 year limit on non-use.
Were the trademark still in use and had they acted in a reasonable period then it is very likely that Intel (and pretty much everyone else using the term) would have found themselves in a good deal of trouble. Even the smallest firm with a valid, in-use trademark could have enforced this given the probability of success (lawyers will take on this sort of a fight if there's a virtually guaranteed payout at the end). However had Psion made a stink earlier in the year they likely would have been attacked by someone like Dell on the basis of abandonment then rather than now. There are similarities here with the Cisco/Apple settlement over the iPhone trademark.
Note that the "reasonable period" is perhaps open to debate but what is sure is that it's shorter now in the days of the Internet than it was when the propagation rate of the mediums were slower (print, then radio, then television, now Internet). In the age of Twitter the entire lifecycle of a product can take place in the time it takes to even register a trademark and there are many things that can be done to modernise the rickety old trademark system. We're doing our bit in that we're working on surfacing "submarine" trademarks but this is just the beginning.
At the end of all this though, it simply doesn't matter. Intel may have thought they were clever by getting behind these new devices (and only they know their real motives with respect to OLPC), but to assume they could link entangle "netbook" with "atom" (so to speak) was perhaps a bit ambitious, if not downright dangerous. The same applies to Microsoft who tried valiantly to keep the netbooks in the UMPC/ULCPC box with arbitrary restrictions on things like screen size at a measly and arbitrary 10 inches.
I've been saying the whole time that "netbooks" are "Internet Notebooks". Given one of the key features for Internet productivity is screen size I am not at all surprised then to see the availability of full size netbooks out to 13.4" already, and manufacturers like Acer (just yesterday) pulling out of the sub-10" marketplace altogether. I'm also not surprised to see alternatives processors (most notably ARM based units like the Freescale) gearing up to take over the lion's share of sales by being cheaper and more energy efficient.
Just as Microsoft introduced the XMLHTTPRequest object which ultimately led to a thriving marketplace of web based cloud computing applications (e.g. Google Apps), Intel has unleashed a monster that could well devour a large part of its revenue. It will be almost impossible for the WinTel alliance to match the new breed of competitors (at least in their current form of Windows 7 Starter on Intel Atom) so they'll want to start thinking outside the box (like Windows Mobile 8 on XScale, except that they already sold it to focus on x86). Meanwhile AMD sees no future for [itself in] netbooks so the new kids on the block like Ubuntu Linux on Freescale currently have nothing to fear from the old school, let alone the infamous trademark.

19 February 2009

Blogger fights Psion's right to 'netbook' name

Blogger fights Psion's right to 'netbook' name (courtesy the Register)
'Considerable chutzpah'

A campaign has been launched to thwart Psion Techlogix's attempt to re-assert its trademark over the name "netbook".

A blogger who claimed to have helped thwart Dell's attempt to trademark "cloud computing" has called on OEMs and retailers to stand their ground and continue using the phrase "netbook" when describing sub-notebooks and their components past a deadline of March 31.

Sam Johnson has also called on Google to reverse an AdWords ban on the use of the phrase "netbooks," for consumers to boycott "offending products", and for journalists and bloggers to continue employing "netbook" and reject alternatives such as "ultra-portable".

Johnson claimed one early victory, saying the Google AdWords netbook ban appeared to have been lifted. Asked about the potential changes, Google told The Reg it does not comment on specific keywords.

A cursory search online, meanwhile, showed both search engine companies and retailers continue to use the phrase "netbook" in their search terms or their product description pages. Google, MSN and Yahoo pulled back pages that described "netbooks" from OEMs, while online and clicks-and-mortar retailers Amazon, Newegg, Buy.com, and Target among others continued to run product descriptions of sub-noteboks as netbooks.

Johnson, the chief technology officer for cloud services company Australian Online Solutions, is basing his campaign on the fact that the phrase "netbook" is too generic to be owned or enforced by a single company.

Accordingly, he has listed product pages from Asus, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Fujitusu, Lenovo, Samsung, Toshiba, and Microsoft among others that directly refer to netbooks or netbook-related products.

The company's claim is further weakened, he said, by the fact Psion is asserting its trademark now that the netbook market is turning into a multi-billion-dollar industry having let its own "Netbook" brand lapse. He complemented the company for "considerable chutzpah."

The campaign comes after Psion last month issued a statement confirming that in December, it had sent hundreds of letters to OEMs and retailers asking they stop using the phrase "netbook" to describe sub-notebook machines, claiming it infringes on registered trademarks in the US, Europe, Canada, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

The letter gave recipients until March 31 to stop using "netbook" and find some alternative, while January's smoothly worded statement (here (warning: PDF)) said litigation was a last resort.

Psion trademarked the name "Netbook" in 1996 and shipped its first device in 1999. That line stopped with the Netbook Pro in 2003 running Windows CE, and Netbook today refers to a line of accessories like battery packs.

Rather incredibly, Psion has argued the phrase "netbook" cannot be considered a generic term because there are so few devices out there.

OK.

Yet, it goes on, things reached some kind of mysterious tipping point in the third quarter of 2008. That's because the industry's continued use of the term "netbook" risked finding its way into consumers' consciousness, producing a critical mass, resulting in the genericisation of the trademark.

"Even though 'netbook' is not yet a generic term for ordinary buyers of these products, it could become so soon if retailers (and others) persist in calling these devices 'netbooks'," the company's statement claimed.

Psion did not respond to questions to answer what precisely happened on or about the third quarter to spur it to action. According to the statement, though: "Psion acted promptly once it became clear that the threat of genericisation was real and growing."

The company was being cagey on what it planned to do should it scare people off using "netbook" so glibly. "We have been considering adding new models to our 'Netbook' line for a while, but our policy is not to pre-announce new products," the statement said. ®

Psion Teklogix may lose Netbook trademark

Psion Teklogix, who own international trademarks on the term "netbook" relating to a product that was discontinued in 2003, had recently sent cease and desist letters to "literally hundreds" of recipients, including netbook enthusiast sites. The Save the Netbooks campaign was launched by an Australian firm "to fight the impending trademark threat" and has since declared victory and retired after only 48 hours. Having already had some success in their first mission to reverse the AdWords ban, they were in the process of filing a petition to cancel with USPTO when they discovered they had been beaten to it by none other than Dell Computer (who we discussed last year on the other side of a similar scandal relating to the "cloud computing" trademark). In the petition, in addition to abandonment and genericness Dell also alleged fraud, claiming that a Sr Product Manager at Psion Teklogix had given a false declaration of use under penalty of purgery back in 2006. In any case it is now very likely that the term "netbook" will be unencumbered and free for all to use (for better or worse).

16 February 2009

"Save the Netbooks" campaign launched to fight impending trademark threat

The "Save the Netbooks" campaign is fighting the impending trademark threat
from Psion Teklogix, who have given until the end of March 2009 to cease using
the term, citing trademarks relating to a line of products discontinued over 5
years ago.


SYDNEY, Australia - February 17, 2009 AEST - The "Save the netbooks" campaign
was launched today to protect the next generation of personal computers from
the impending threat of trademark action starting at the end of March 2009.

In a written statement released last month, Canadian firm Psion Teklogix, Inc.
confirmed news reports that they had contacted "literally hundreds of entities
around the world" to "affirm" international trademarks. The applications filed
between 1996 and 1998 related to their Psion netBook™ product line that was
launched in 1999 and subsequently discontinued over five years ago in 2003
(except for providing accessories, maintenance and support to existing users).

"We have been unable to find any connection whatsoever between Psion Teklogix
and the recent explosive organic growth of the term 'netbook', nor any
evidence that steps were taken to protect the trademark prior to the batch of
letters sent on the eve of christmas last year", said Sam Johnston, Strategic
Consultant. "We also believe that the term is a generic description for a
class of products rather than the specific meaning they intended, and that it
should not have been afforded trademark protection in the first place as it
is merely descriptive. Furthermore, at $1,299 the device would not even have
met one of the key criteria for netbooks were it available today: price."

"A 'netbook' is a class of laptop computers designed for Internet access.
Often confused with the 'subnotebook' or 'ultraportable' segment, the recent
availability of full size netbooks dispels the myth that size matters", said
Johnston, adding that "Thanks to rapid evolution such as the introduction of
ARM chips and custom Linux distributions, as well as support from increasingly
robust cloud computing offerings like Google Apps, netbooks are well placed
to become the de facto standard portable computer for the foreseeable future".

According to Business Week they tend to be greener too "thanks to lower power
demands, fewer toxic components, and a resource-efficient approach to
computing". Their task-specific manufacturing allows them to be far cheaper
than their predecessors and for enterprise users the total cost of ownership
(TCO) is greatly reduced. As they have few or no moving parts and high
efficiency processors they run cool, quiet and for up to a day at a time on a
single charge, and they do not need to be upgraded or replaced for 5-10 years.

The term "netbook" is a portmanteau of "Internet" and "notebook", in the same
way that "netizen" is a blend of "Internet" and "citizen". It started gaining
in popularity following the January 2005 launch of the One Laptop Per Child
(OLPC) project and rapidly entered the public lexicon with the 2007 launch of
the Asus eeePC. During 2008 the "netbook craze" really took off with most
computer manufacturers launching a "netbook" class device, often under the
"netbook" moniker. Today netbooks are manufactured by Acer, Asus, Dell,
Fujitsu, Gigabyte, HP, Lenovo, Medion, MSI, OLPC, Packard Bell, Toshiba,
Samsung, Sony and many others (but notably not Psion Teklogix) and you can buy
them from hundreds of thousands of distributors and retailers around the globe.

ABI Research predicts that 35 million netbooks will be sold this year, which is
triple the 10 million sold in 2008 and almost two orders of magnitude more than
were sold in 2007. They estimate this will rise to 139 million in 2013. At a
conservative $200 per device this could be a $30bn industry within 5 years.

"Typically priced well below $500, netbooks are a breath of fresh air in a
tough economic climate and they have extended personal computers to people
who have never been able to afford them", said Johnston. "They are also a key
component of the cloud computing ecosystem and a compelling cost reduction
strategy for enterprises. We welcome Psion Teklogix to the marketplace with a
netbook class device, but we note that they have not yet ruled out litigation
and urge them to do so promptly in order to maintain a level playing field and
ensure the widest possible consumer choice."

In the 8 January statement prepared by Marcus Casadei, Marketing Creative Lead,
and entitled "PSION STARTS PROCESS OF AFFIRMING ‘NETBOOK’ TRADEMARKS", Psion
Teklogix maintain that their trademarks are enforceable despite conceding
that "in recent years the extent of use has been somewhat reduced". They have
ruled out selling or licensing the mark, wishing "to be free to use it on
[their] future products" at the exclusion of all others, and are currently
calling for 'transition to a different descriptive term over a 3 month term'.
They note that the term "could become [generic] soon if retailers (and others)
persist in calling these devices 'netbooks'" and plead for "responsible
retailers and manufacturers" to "understand that it is wrong for them to
contribute to, and be complicit in, making a registered trademark generic",
asking them "as a matter of principle" to "respect [their] trademarks".

We contend that trademarks are intended to protect established brands, that it
is wrong to abuse them to hijack any term from the public lexicon, and that it
takes considerable chutzpah to do so after waiting "to be sure that there was a
real danger" while watching a multi-billion dollar netbook industry take shape.

We call for manufacturers and retailers to to stand your ground by continuing
to make new and innovative products available under the "netbook" moniker.

We call for Google to reverse the unfair ban on AdWords ads using the term
"netbook" on the basis that it is both generic and descriptive.

We call for journalists and bloggers to take advantage of the offered amnesty
(as we have) by rejecting the proposed "ultra-portable" alternative and
continuing to use "netbook" generically when referring to "Internet notebooks".

We call for consumers to vote with your feet should the community granted
privilege of a monopoly be abused, by joining in a boycott of the offending
products, a negative review protest and other coordinated activities.

Most of all we call for Psion Teklogix to "Save the Netbooks" themselves by
abandoning the offending trademarks within their self-assigned six week
deadline and committing instead to play fair under the "Psion netBook" banner.

For more information visit http://www.savethenetbooks.com/.

About Australian Online Solutions Pty Ltd

Australian Online Solutions is a boutique consultancy that specialises in
cloud computing solutions for large enterprise, government and education
clients throughout Australia, Europe and the USA. Despite having prototyped
a $199.00 Linux PC around the turn of the millennium, it is a services
company that has no intention of entering the netbook marketplace.

Australian Online Solutions was successful in August 2008 in protecting the
term "cloud computing" from a similar trademark attempt by Dell Computer,
whereby the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued a
"Notice of Allowance". This was cancelled within days of company founder,
Sam Johnston, revealing the discovery on a cloud computing mailing list.

Similarly, an October 2008 attempt by Arastra, Inc. to register
"Cloud Networking" was foiled after the phrase was defined in Wikipedia and
used extensively in a generic context. Arastra abandoned their application
this month after receiving a refusal notice from the USPTO in January.

Australian Online Solutions has also just launched a Google App Engine
application called 'indexifier' which is working on gradually surfacing
these "submarine trademarks" over the course of the coming year. To help out
link to http://indexifier.appspot.com/ and for the source visit Google Code.

Sam Johnston, Founder and CTO, is a prominent blogger on cloud computing,
security and open source topics. He maintains a blog at http://samj.net/

Press Contact:
Sam Johnston
Save the Netbooks <campaign@savethenetbooks.com>
Australian Online Solutions Pty Ltd
http://www.aos.net.au/
+61 2 8898 9090

###

Company and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their
respective companies.

13 February 2009

Australian Internet censorship trial participant feedback

I forwarded my last post to the six trial participant ISPs and promptly received the first comprehensive response from one Andrew Robson, Managing Director of TECH 2U, which is no surprise given the terse explanation I included:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to register my disapproval of your participation in the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Filtering Live Pilot which I consider to be a full frontal assault on the rights of all Australians as well as a potentially serious inhibitor for the next generation of cloud computing solutions. I have written about this important issue on my popular blog and called for a boycott of your services due to your participation in this pilot.

Your support of this ill-conceived program is inexcusable and I hope that the Australian public will exact a heavy toll on your business as a result.

Sam
I figured it only fair that he be given the right of reply here, though not without a response from me. I did consider the possibility that (like larger ISPs iiNet, Internode and Telstra) they were not 'supporting' the filtering as such, rather gathering data and possibly even preparing a case against it, but at least one of them prides themselves as being "Australia's first content filtered ISP". It's also not at all clear what financial support/incentives were provided (it doesn't help that they "are not contractually able to discuss" the details either) and times are tough in this cutthroat industry so it wouldn't take much to convince a smaller ISP to participate. So without further ado:
Mr Sam Johnston

Thank you for your email outlining your concerns regarding the particpation of TECH 2U Pty Limited in the upcoming government internet filtering trial.

We note from our files that before writing to us in such a tone you have not actually asked if we are in favour or against internet filtering. Nor have you asked why we are particpating in the trial in the first place.

Over the last six months we have read with real interest the debate over internet filtering and have noted the lack of any hard evidence either way of its operation in a real world enviroment. We like everyone else have firm views on what is possible and what is not.

This of course puts aside the very real question of whether or not the internet should be filtered at all. Nor whether parents should take responsibility for their own children.

In this case we see this trial as the first real test of a real world scenario and the first real chance for people to either prove or disprove the various theories. Provided with a golden once in a life time opportunity to be part of this process we found it hard to decline. It was better to be part of the test team than to be on the sidelines yelling (or emailing) while someone else determined our destiny.

We spoke to our customers who agreed. Better to be part of it than not.

We will of course conceed that not many of our customers are "cloud computing" application users and supporters such as yourself. (In fact many would never have heard of it). It therefore follows that in our test base no impact will be seen on "cloud computing" at all. Mathematically and technically correct but in fact perhaps a skewed test result. As you would agree. When the test results are colated they will show no impact on "cloud computing". More likely they will not even mention it.

My suggestion is that you would be better to actually join one of the ISPs particpating in the trial than not. Once you join ensure you are part of the test trial and then be part of the proof that it does not work. Have your say and make it count. Fill out the customer surveys, answer the questions. Demonstrate why it caused a problem and not just state an opinion. Governments want hard facts to back their case either way (read here cover arse) and sometimes emotion alone while admired does not do it.

We joined this trial to obtain the facts.

The real problem we now face is that the very people who should be in the trial with their expertise have turned their back on it. Worse still they are now "calling for a boycott of your services". If this really does occur it may distort the test results in a way that we will all regret later on. Watch this space as they say.

For your information we are not contractually able to discuss the specific tests involved but it would take about 500 -1000 users to have any impact on the test results for any individual ISP. The tests will actually vary from ISP to ISP but most will occur in the March to May 09 time period.

Kindest regards

Andrew Robson
General Manager
TECH 2U Pty Limited
What I took from this was that they don't take a firm stance either way on Internet censorship, but they are aware of its limitations and they preferred to be involved than a spectator. I've said before that I don't think the trials will be representative as without significant load performance may well be adequate, without extended duration outages may be avoided and without those of us having the requisite expertise (like myself and many of you) the feedback will be largely useless.

Andrew claims that "not many of [their] customers are 'cloud computing' application users" but he probably didn't realise that cloud computing includes Facebook, Google Apps (including Gmail), Hotmail and many of the web applications that your average Internet user uses every day. These applications will all suffer to varying degrees with Internet filtering - it is simply not possible that their performance could improve (as may have previously been the case with caching proxy servers) as each request is dynamic and needs to be processed by the servers as quickly as possible. With more 'moving parts' reliability will also suffer - again it is not possible that inserting complex (relatively) unreliable systems into the data flow will help.

Furthermore it should not be too difficult to mount a (deliberate or inadvertent) denial of service attack against these devices. It is well within the realm of possibility that one of the many viruses in the wild today could generate enough requests to take down even the largest filtering system, and that's just in the course of their 'work' spamming blogs, wikis and websites - let alone a malicious attack consisting of many small, random requests. Indeed it is likely that someone able to control even a relatively minor botnet could 'take down the Internet' for a large portion of the Australian population, leaving the ISPs essentially powerless to stop it without running afoul of the law.

Anyway I appreciate the time that Andrew took to respond and encourage people to take up the matter with their ISPs even if only so as to give them the right of response.

Cloud Computing Doghouse Updates (Incoming): Australia's Clean Feed

Today was a sad day for all Australians (and not just becuase of the horrific bushfires) - Senator Stephen Conroy (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, above) announced the start of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Filtering Live Pilot. I'm not going to go into the myriad reasons as to why this is a full frontal assault on our rights, nor explain all the reasons why it can never work and why a limited opt-in trial is not representative of reality, talk about collateral damage or even point out the many ways that a tool like this could (and almost certainly will) be repurposed to invade our privacy and monitor our every (online) move - Wikipedia's Internet censorship in Australia article does a great job of covering the main issues.

I will however point out that such systems can only have a detrimental affect on cloud computing which is heavily reliant on low latency, high bandwidth connections. I'm surprised that others have not focused on this before, but with consumers and business alike moving en-masse to cloud computing solutions like Google Apps, who in their right mind would interfere with the pipes that make it all work? Filtering systems are complex, orders of magnitude slower than dedicated network equipment, largely ineffective, easily circumvented and perhaps most importantly, prone to catastrophic failure.

Google's recent high profile outage which rendered the Internet unusable for the majority of Internet users for almost an hour was due to a SINGLE '/' CHARACTER misplaced in a filtering system. For many businesses, Internet connectivity is getting to be as important as other utilities like water, gas and electricity - without it they are completely paralysed. Even spikes in latency which affect functions like address auto-complete and interactive interfaces (think Gmail) can render cloud computing applications unusable. Forget the children (who could be filtered selectively anyway), think of the cloud! Besides, education is a better strategy.

For those of you who (like me) take offense to this latest attack on our liberties, here's what you can do:
If you need a starting point, here's what I sent to my old local member, Malcolm Turnbull (who happens also to be the leader of the opposition) back in October last year:

Dear Sir,

I write to register my strong objection to the "clean feed" proposal which is already once again already making Australia the "global village idiot". A certified security professional I assure you that you are trying to achieve the impossible and as an Australian citizen I am concerned that this measure, sold as protection for society, will actually erode its very core. The scope for abuse of such technology is virtually unlimited and though today's objective may be a noble (if unattainable) goal, inevitible future repurposing is a very serious risk that far outweighs any percieved benefit; it is indeed a slippery slope and short step from here to the systemic abuse of the most oppressive of regimes.

Furthermore, as an active proponent of the next generation of technology known as cloud computing I can assure you that any such system will impair both performance and security while being easily bypassed, damaging the country's competitive edge and forcing business and personal consumers to pay more for already extortionate Internet access (in France for example a complete, unrestricted telephone/television/internet package costing hundreds in Australia is only €29.99).

Please reconsider this misguided proposal and divert funding to countermeasures such as education which will certainly be far more effective, in the same way that funds diverted to first responders would be a far more beneficial response to the threat of terrorism.

Kind regards,

Sam Johnston
CISSP
And here's what I heard back a few days later:
Thanks Sam for your email. There are many concerns about the manner in which a blanket arbitrary determination about web content will be imposed by the Government.

The coalition fully supports guarding our children from being exposed to inappropriate internet content and is of the firm belief that parental and adult supervision and guidance should be front and centre of all efforts.

We will continue to monitor the progress of this trial with great interest and make a considered assessment based on its outcomes. This will include analysis of the specifications and performance of the filtering methods tested.

No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Cloud Computing Doghouse Updates (Outgoing): Nirvanix

A lot has happened since I tried my hand at investigative journalism with my detailed piece on Nirvanix's lineage and its connections with Streamload/Mediamax/The Linkup (which you can read about in their Wikipedia article). Shortly afterwards CMO Jonathan Buckley was gone and a month ago today CEO Patrick Harr left "to pursue a new business endeavour", replaced by "IT Veteran" and ex-McKinsey & Co, Jim Zierick (many of my friends are current & former McKinsey consultants and without exception they all know their stuff).

I've since had a bunch of public and private feedback and also heard from the original founder, Steve Iverson, who was surprisingly objective about it all:
It's been several months now, so I have had enough time to put it behind me and move on to new things. We had a good run with Streamload and some good times and some very bad times and many lessons learned for me. The Nirvanix/MediaMax outcome was very disappointing and could have worked out so much better for everyone (MediaMax, Nirvanix, and our customers) but I suppose it wasn't meant to be.
I can relate to Steve's situation in that he would certainly not be the first technical person to have been disenfranchised by unscrupulous business types (Cisco founders Sandy Lerner and Len Bosack come to mind), but I also feel for the many victims who lost irreplacible data in The Linkup's demise. I guess we'll never know the true extent of Nirvanix's culpability.

If this anonymous former employee is to be believed then maybe it's too late for Nirvanix already, but if the guys responsible for this debacle are indeed long gone and they've tightened the belt and replaced key members of the management team then maybe it's not - time will tell. They have some attractive products and (almost) first-mover advantage so provided they can deliver on the service then they could well still turn it into a success story.

In any case there seems little point in leaving them in the doghouse - no doubt if the data could have been restored it would have already and perhaps the old adage that "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is apt. I wish Jim and his team well and look forward to seeing what the next Nirvanix chapter holds.

Cloud Computing Doghouse Updates (Incoming): Psion / Netbook trademark

Many of you will remember Psion from their heydey of making PDAs and other consumer devices and will be surprised to see them being discussed in the context of cloud computing. I've already explained what the netbook class of laptops is before and why 2009 will be the year of the enterprise netbook. Basically these are laptops that are optimised for the Internet, not bloated operating systems running heavyweight local applications. They have just enough resources for that task and as a result are significantly cheaper and (having dispensed with many of the moving parts) are far more reliable. They run cooler and longer and are both economically and ecologically friendly (think $300-400 each and 5-10 year lifetime, or a couple of bucks a month). Sounds too good to be true? Well if Psion have their way, it will be (at least under the 'netbook' moniker to which we are all accustomed).

You see the thing is that a bunch of years ago Psion somehow managed to obtain trademarks (including US trademark #75215401 and EU Community Trademark #000428250) for the term 'netbook' which it used on a line of products abandoned over 5 years ago. While the trademark probably should have been rejected outright for being 'merely descriptive' (e.g. a network enabled notebook), it wasn't and managed to proceed to registration and extension into other territories.

Despite significant generic usage of the term over the last year or two (sufficient that the vast majority of us don't think 'Psion' when we hear 'netbook'), just before christmas last year Psion's lawyers sent out a bunch of cease and desist letters (like this one) - not only to vendors but also to bloggers! They later clarified that they were only going after those "profiteering" from the term while conceding that "the extent of use has not been that great" (they have just been "supplying ‘Netbook’ accessories and also providing maintenance and support to existing ‘Netbook’ users").

To our surprise the USPTO enforced it as recently as last month in denying at least 3 other marks (here, here and here) containing the term 'Netbook' citing 'confusing simularity' with Psion's existing registered trademark. Google only last week banned ads containing the term as well. Too bad for Dell, HP and anyone else with a 'netbook' line. Ultimately though it will be the consumer who suffers if Psion continue on this perplexing crusade. They still lack a netbook offering (even if they are scrambling to build one) and while their Symbian/ARM based product was quite revolutionary, it would not have been the first time a product failed because it was ahead of its time.

See trademarks are designed to give a legal monopoly such that an owner can build up a brand and prevent others from releasing similar products with the same identifying features. They're essential for many businesses and generally good for consumers too - you know what you're getting when you buy a can of Coke® but couldn't be so sure were it not for trademark protection. In this case though the term 'netbook' grew organically and independently of Psion's largely unsuccessful product (sufficiently so that it has been long since abandoned). Their choosing to wait until now to enforce the trademark rather than stamp it out when it first appeared (in which case we would have just found some other term) is damaging to the segment, damaging to the users and damaging to cloud computing itself.

That's why they're taking over from Dell in the cloud computing doghouse and will stay there until such time as they win (which would be a travesty of grand proportions) or the trademark is invalidated as descriptive and/or generic. If any vendors want to take on this fight then I'd be more than happy to provide an expert opinion, and I'm sure I'm not alone. To those of you who think Psion is playing fair, guess again - they had their chance and missed it by a full 5 years. If they want to get in the game now and compete on a level playing field then they are more than welcome, but resorting to the trademark equivalent of a 'submarine patent' is (in my opinion at least) playing dirty pool.

Cloud Computing Doghouse Updates (Outgoing): Dell Computer

Today is an important day in that it marks the 6 month anniversary of USPTO's revocation of Dell's Notice of Allowance for the infamous 'Cloud Computing' trademark #77139082 that I revealed on 1 August last year. Why's that important? Because "to avoid abandonment, the office must [have] receive[d] a proper response to [that] office action within 6 months of the issue/mailing date". Although it was widely accepted that they'd have had a snowflake's chance in hell of reversing a finding that the mark was both descriptive and generic, it's good to know that the term 'cloud computing' is as of today officially unencumbered and that the USPTO should shortly issue a 'Notice of Abandonment'.

While it would have been a nice gesture for them to overtly abandon the mark (like Arista recently did after their application #77596599 for 'Cloud Networking' suffered the same fate) they've served their time and have been doing some interesting things in the cloud computing space ever since (both on the client and the server side). Many of my large enterprise clients buy Dell gear and despite this shenanigans and tomfoolery I'll happily continue to recommend them (as I have done now for over a decade).

Interestingly enough they've now found themselves on the other side of the table with Psion's various Netbook trademarks. This could cause some problems for their Inspiron Mini line (including the Mini 12, one of the first full sized netbooks) as unlike the cloud related marks, these ones actually proceeded to registration.

Dell are leading the way on the client side for cloud computing and are really putting the cat amongst the pigeons by experimenting with ARM processors in their new range of business hybrid laptops. I'm looking forward to seeing some great stuff from them in 2009, particularly as they're joining Apple, Google and others at the ARM party (to which both Intel and Microsoft thus far aren't invited).