News Corp Plans to Block Google From Wall Street Journal
Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp, recently landed on headlines when he said in an online interview that News Corp is planning to block Google from crawling into its web sites.
The interview, conducted by David Speer of major network Sky News Australia, discussed a wide range of topics, from the debate between free and paid to an evaluation of the performance of President Barack Obama. In the interview, Mr. Murdoch expressed disagreement over free access to information that should have been paid for in other sites.
Murdoch said, “I think we’ve been asleep.” He added, “It costs us a lot of money to put together good newspapers and good content. They’re very happy to pay for it when they buy a newspaper, and I think when they read it elsewhere they’re going to have to pay. Not huge sums. You’d be surprised how much can be done, how cheaply, into the average home.”
Other News Corp. executive have similarly declared against this form of “kleptomania” and “parasitism,” and have lobbied to prevent Google from showing their content in its many properties. In a nutshell, Mr. Murdoch has accused search engines of stealing their content. News Corp., however, has been silent about Murdoch’s views.
In the interview, Mr. Speers argued that search sites are claiming to help news outlets by directing the searchers to the site when they click on the search results. This, he said, makes the scheme symbiotic.
But Mr. Murdoch countered that the searchers are not immediately converted into loyal readers. “We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site by paying,” he added.
Mr. Speers raised another argument advanced by Google, which said Internet sites are free to choose whether or not they want to be appear in search engines. “You could simply refuse to be on it, so that when someone does to a search, your Web sites don’t come up. Why haven’t you done that?”
To which, Mr. Murdoch replied that he thinks News Corp. will explore that possibility. “We do it already, with The Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it’s not right to the ceiling. You can get the first paragraph of any story, but if you’re not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com, you get a paragraph of any story, but if you’re not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com, you get a paragraph and a subscription form.” At the moment, content in WSJ are organized by search engines and are feature for free in Google results. When searchers click on the link, they are directed to the article, and then directed to the pay wall after accessing a few articles.
According to Mr. Murdoch, News Corp. is a supporter of the fair-use doctrine. Under the fair-use doctrine, users may use copyrighted materials provided that the use is fair. Search results are traditionally covered by the definition of “fair use” but this remains to be decided upon by the courts.
Mr. Murdoch’s statements have drawn different reactions. Some have said they do not believe that News Corp. would give up the search traffic to restrict its contents. Others believe that News Corp. could do it if they want to. Techdirt even commented that taking out News Corp’s sites from Google search is a major step, which is “one right off the side of a big cliff.”
Entrepreneur Mark Cuban has expressed support for Mr. Murdoch’s remarks. According to Mr. Cuban, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter could reinstate the potential decrease in Google search traffic to News Corp.’s websites, as these do not prohibit the sharing of content.
As of press time, Google has not commented to directly address the remarks of Mr. Murdoch. The internet giant however stated that it believes its search engine and news pages are benefiting news organizations by directing web traffic to their own sites. It added that news organizations are allowed to take out their content from Google properties.
The Many Faces of iPad: Fujitsu & STMicro Take on Apple
Apple is in danger of being made subject of a lawsuit by Japan’s Fujitsu and European chipmaker STMicroelectronics, in the wake of Apple’s adoption of the name “iPad” for its latest tablet PC eye candy. “iPad” has been a registered trademark by STMicro since 2000 for its semiconductor technology. For Fujitsu’s part, it is claiming that it created a palmtop computer of the same name, launched internally for use by its shop assistants beginning 2002. At present, Fujitsu has a pending application for the use of the trademark.
There are other companies that hold rights to use “iPad” as a trademark for products under certain categories, including Siemens for engines and motors, and Coconut Grove Pads for padded bras. These trademark infringement issues bring us back to 2007, when Apple introduced the iPhone to the public. This caused Cisco—registered owner of the name—to go to the courts. The matter was later settled when the contenders agreed to own the name jointly, for undisclosed terms.
Asked what STMicro intends to do, its representative said they were studying their options. Fujitsu’s official statement said: “[The company] is aware of Apple’s iPad announcement and the possible infringement on our trademark . . . We are currently discussing our options with our trademark counsel and have no further comment at this time.”
Trademark disputes – especially those that involve brand giants like Apple and Fujitsu or Cisco – are usually not enough to hinder the infringing company from launching the product, or to compel it to rebrand. However, if Apple loses its bid for “iPad” and Fujitsu is allowed to continue its application, or if Apple fails to justify that the two products are not confusingly similar, it will have no recourse but to buy the rights from Fujitsu.
The iPad Comparisons
Fujitsu’s iPad is a gadget that has a 3.5-inch screen, powered by an Intel processor, uses a Microsoft OS, and is Wi-fi and Bluetooth-enabled. Its purpose is to connect shop assistants and managers to sales and stock data. STMicro’s iPad, on the other hand, is less similar. “iPad” is an acronym for “integrated passive and active devices,” referring to the technology that used to manufacture semiconductors. But here’s the caveat: STMicro’s products are used in cars, washing machines, smartphones and mobile phones, among other gadgets. The implication: STMicro’s iPad technology could someday be applied to handheld devices like Apple’s iPad.
Fujitsu’s prior application in the US is dated March 2003. It was suspended after the US Patent and Trademark Office found a prior filing by Mag-Tek for keypads used to enter personal identification numbers. The application was subsequently declared abandoned, but was revived by Fujitsu in June 2009. A month later, Apple sent its proxy to the patent and trademark office of Trinidad & Tobago to register “iPad” and secure a priority date that it can claim when it applies for registration in other parts of the world. In the last quarter of 2009, Apple requested the US PTO for more time to oppose Fujitsu’s application. February 28 is the deadline for Apple to decide if it will contest Fujitsu’s application or not.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Fujitsu’s trademark lawyer, Hanify & King’s Edward Pennington said: “They probably need to talk to us and we haven’t had any direct communications with Apple,” and went on to describe Apple’s position as “awkward”.
Russian Blog Justice: Internet Influencing Politics & Law
The Russian blogosphere became a place of public outcry against the lack of adequate punishment for corrupt government officials and their relatives violating the law. A simple blog search reveals numerous posts criticizing Russian police, senators and governors who disregard any notion of the law and easily avoid any consequences for taking bribes, pursuing illegal business deals or even killing people.
But the public frustration online doesn’t always lead to real-life changes. The recent story of a car crash in one of the Siberian cities and online reaction to the incident illustrate how an improvised online campaign attempts to affect gloomy reality.
On the surface, the story of Anna Shavenkova who ran over two women while driving her Toyota on December 2, 2009 in Irkutsk is nothing new in Russia. Thousands of people are killed in road accidents every month. But the story took a slightly different spin when people found out that Anna is a daughter of Lyudmila Shavenkova, a chairwoman of the election committee in Irkutsk region, who apparently has a lot of influence on the way things are done in that part of the country.
The disturbing video [ENG] of the crash, which keeps being deleted from YouTube, has been shown by some media outlets and, at first, did not originally cause any significant discussion online. Some bloggers pointed out the indifference of people who continued walking as if nothing happened. Some were upset that Anna, the driver, got out of the car and started immediately calling someone (not the ambulance) instead of checking the condition of the victims (one of them died in a hospital several days later).
What really led to the outrage on the blogs is a result of a formal investigation of the crash by the road police in Irkutsk. Anna is allegedly being treated as a witness of the crash although she was the one who drove the car into the sidewalk and hit the by-passers.
The well-known blogger and member of “The Other Russia” oppositional coalition [EN] Marina Litvinovich (aka LJ userabstract2001) commented on it in her blog post [RUS] that quickly attracted thousands of visitors and hundreds of comments:
Многие, наверное, помнят ролик из Иркутска, где камера видеонаблюдения зафиксировала ДТП. Его виновница, Анна Шавенкова, на полной скорости сбившая двух девушек в самом центре Иркутска, вдруг оказалась не виновницей происшествия, а его свидетельницей. Кто является виновником ДТП, суд пока не установил. Вполне вероятно, что виновником окажется автомобиль. А Анна Шавенкова просто так, случайно, оказалась на водительском сидении. Чисто как свидетель.
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Many remember the video from Irkutsk where a camera captured a car crash. The person who caused it, Anna Shavenkova, hitting two girls in the center of Irkutsk at full speed, suddenly became a witness and not the one responsible for the crash. The court has not yet determined who is responsible. It is possible that the car will be found guilty. And Anna Shavenkova just happened to be in the driver’s seat. Just as a witness.
Litvinovich urged other bloggers to re-post this information online hoping that it would eventually catch the attention of media. Following the advice from a fellow blogger, she even created a “re-post” button at the end of the post making it easier for everyone to spread the information.
Many bloggers responded to this by enthusiastically linking to Litvinovich’s blog (the most popular reply to the post was “I re-posted”) and expressing their deepest concerns with how the local authorities handled the incident.
A good portion of online readers admitted the impotence of law in Russia against people with power and called for concrete actions. Blogger tvn1, for example, wrote [RUS] that one cannot blame a mother who tried to shield her daughter from the punishment. Instead, the blogger drew attention to the people who made it possible for a person to be above the law:
А вот судью и ментов надо мочить жёстко и показательно. Из-за них, взяточников, и стал возможным мажорский беспредел.
Нужно уже брать пример с той-же Греции, Франции т.п. Так за такие дела люди выходят на улицы и пускают в ход силу ломов, коктейлей молотова и прочих подручных средств, этим самым напоминая, что власть – слуга народа а не народ на службе у власти.
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION] We should whack the judge and police harshly and indicatively. Because of them, bribe-takers, the lawlessness became possible. We should follow the example of Greece, France, etc. People there take it to the streets and use the force of crowbars, Molotov cocktails and other means reminding the authorities that they are servants of people and not the other way around.
Proposals to “whack” authorities and “take it to the streets” were not uncommon among the bloggers.
Some suggested that the “lawlessness” is the fault of people who elected those authorities. LJ user toytronic wrote [RUS]:
В этой стране власть всегда имела граждан, почитайте историю! Радуйтесь, что в ЖЖ вам пока любезно позволяют чувствовать себя свободными! Вы сами проголосовали за вертикаль власти и парламентское большинство, а получили тотальную коррупцию, полное разложение МВД, цензуру СМИ и парламент состоящий из коррупционных чиновников, на все это мерзко смотреть! У вас была возможность избрать демократическое гражданское общество в конце 90х! Если народ не поумнеет, его ждет новый 37 год!
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION] The authorities always “had” people in this country. Read history! You should be glad that you are so far allowed to feel freedom in Livejournal [popular blogging platform in Russia - V.I.]! You were the ones who voted for the vertical of power and the parliament majority and you got total corruption, full decay of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the parliament that consists of corrupted officials. It is sickening to look at! You had an opportunity to choose a democratic society at the end of 90′s! If people don’t get smarter, they will face the year of 1937 [the Great Purges period in Russia - V.I.]!
Another blogger called for active participation in local and regional elections to prevent corrupt politicians from taking power.
Litvinovich’s post is currently among the most popular ones on the Russian blogosphere leading in every rating of the top online entries. It seems that the author achieved the goal to attract attention of many netizens to the issue.
But it is still unclear if the improvised virtual campaign will amount to any results in real life. Litvinovich seems to be convinced that it will change things for the better. Replying to a comment doubting the effectiveness of re-posting, Litvinovich optimistically noted:
Опыт показывает, что простым привлечением внимания моно много добиться – например того, что следствие и суд к проблеме отнесутся по-другому, а не так как сейчас. Если не помоет, будем думать, что еще можно сделать.
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Experience shows that, by simply attracting attention, one can achieve a lot. For example, the court and further investigation will treat this incident differently and not how they treat it now. If this doesn’t help, we will think of something else we can do.
