The Battle Between the Apple iPhone and the RIM Blackberry for Attorney Technology
There’s no doubting the fact that almost every lawyer possesses a mobile phone – it is sometimes the lifeline that keeps them connected to their office and their clients when they’re on the go. Most of them are either the proud owners of the sturdy workhorse BlackBerry while some others have been swayed by the allure of the new editions of the iPhone. So would you choose the more sedate BlackBerry or the sleeker iPhone?
Well, it all comes down to a matter of personal choice and your budget, but there are few practical aspects that you need to consider when weighing your options between the two smart phones.
If you’re tech savvy and want loads of functions and applications on your mobile device, go with the iPhone. This device from Apple is packed with just about everything a designer could think of. You need some time though to learn your way around this nifty gadget before you’re able to use it like a seasoned pro. The iPhone combines voice and text capabilities and makes browsing a very pleasant experience. But if you’re likely to feel overwhelmed by the arsenal of ammunition at your disposal, it’s best to just look at and not buy this phone/mobile computer.
If you prefer to use the phone mainly to send email, a BlackBerry is your best bet. It is not complicated to use and the lighter application load makes it faster and more convenient when you’re in a hurry. It’s also easier to use if you are not a technology buff and are only getting one of these smart phones because everyone else is and you don’t want to be left behind.
No matter what the technology, it must be used wisely and with restraint. Some of us are so addicted to technology that we cannot hold back from replying to every email and text message as soon as they arrive or from taking every call that comes through, even when we’re attending meetings or talking to clients and colleagues. The good etiquette line must be drawn somewhere if we are to utilize technology efficiently without tarnishing its value.
[thanks to alex choi and andrew flusche via cc]
NextBus Information Systems v Routesy: iPhone Apps and Public Data Usage Debate
Steven Peterson, a web developer in San Francisco, put together a handy iPhone app called Routesy that gives schedules and arrival times for Muni, the city’s public transit system. The underlying data is collected by a company called NextBus, which puts trackers on the various vehicles. Generativity at its best—the government releases some data, people turn the data into something useful.
Then a guy named Peter Orloff emailed Peterson to say that he was from NextBus Information Systems, he had all the data copyrighted, and Peterson would have to arrange some sort of revenue split if he wanted to keep offering his app. After some research, Peterson says he found that NextBus Information Systems had no real connection to NextBus and was very unlikely to own the data (although there is a dubious legal claim), so he ignored Orloff and went on selling the app. So Orloff went to Apple and demanded that they stop selling Routesy, claiming that it violated his copyrights. Apple pulled it down, and Peterson couldn’t do anything about it—although he got lots of supportive emails, and says that “It’s really heartwarming to see so many people so passionate about using public transportation.”
The thing is, though, Orloff doesn’t seem to have a valid copyright claim. Muni says the data is public and sharing is encouraged. When Eve Batey, a reporter from SF Appeal, confronted Orloff about the copyright issue, he gave a series of truly bizarre excuses. (Article headline: “Muni Arrival Data App Killer Fears Attacks From Enraged Data/Transit Fiends.”)
This actually looks similar to the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime for ISPs. Under the DMCA, copyright holders can inform an ISP that they’re hosting an infringing work, and the ISP must disable access to the site if it wants to retain a blanket-like immunity against a claim for contributory copyright infringement. The site creator can, however, send a counter-notice protesting that the copyright claim is invalid, and the ISP may then restore access to the work unless the copyright holder files a lawsuit within 14 days of the counter-notice. Although there are disagreements over the DMCA standard, which was a compromise between the ISPs’ interests and the copyright holders’ interests, is it relatively clear and workable.
Apple, I think, would do well to adopt some kind of similar standard for claims against existing apps. They certainly ought to have a way for app creators to lodge a counterclaim against protestors. Apple apps are, and will increasingly be, big business, and so people with both good and malicious intentions will be very concerned about copyright. (It doesn’t even need to just be copyright: recall the groups that rallied to getBabyShaker off the iPhone because it was incredibly tasteless.) This is just another aspect of the problem that Apple is trying to be an omnipotent gatekeeper, but without the manpower to be omniscient—to investigate each app for security, copyright, and tastefulness.
More generally, I think we’ll soon need clear standards on the rights and responsibilities of mobile carriers, hardware providers, and OS creators. Who will be given broad, ISP-like immunity, and who won’t? Mobile computing is going to be too important to have very powerful ad hoc gatekeepers with conflicting, overlapping, or unrealistic roles.
[thanks to danny choo and elisabeth oppenheimer via cc]
Black’s Law Dictionary Apple iPhone App: Price Is Too High
If you work in the legal industry and you’re an iPhone or iPod Touch user, you’ve probably picked up on the fact that Black’s Law Dictionary is now available for the iPhone or iPod touch. You may also be aware that West released the new application at a price of $49.99.
This post is not intended as a feature review. For that, I suggest you link on over to Jeff Richardson’s iPhone JD blog for his comments which went up this morning.
What I’m curious about is the price point chosen. I think it’s too high, and not because West doesn’t deserve to make a profit. In fact, I think they’ve missed profitability equation on this new product entirely. Let me explain why.
As Connie Crosby points out in the comments on this Slaw post, a firm that spends a couple hundred dollars on legal dictionaries isn’t going to increase their budget to thousands just because we are now able to tether a digital copy to a smart phone. If you price the print edition and iPhone edition the same, you are inevitably asking for comparisons to be made. It forces an either-or decision.
That’s not what West wants (or at least not what I think West wants…). The goal should be to avoid media format competition at all costs; especially when the possibility exists of selling their IP twice, once in each format.
West could have skipped the whole ‘firm budget’ equation and moved this purchase into being a personal expense just by lowering the price point below $30. Had they lowered the price to a discretionary level, many lawyers would skip the firm paying altogether and picked up the bill themselves.
The key, I think, is to create new non-competing markets. West is far better off, both short and long term, with $25 apps on every lawyer’s smart phone, over shared copies of print products. Any firm out there, even a two-lawyer operation, will logically make the decision to resource share when possible – thus reducing the number of purchased copies. This part’s simple math – create the demand for a lower-cost personal edition, and you create a larger & more lucrative market. Moving shared product purchases to personal product purchases is just good business for West.
But equally important to the profit equation is to not let digital content – iPhone apps included – exist only for business consumption. Lawyers are also consumers, and individual purchases made outside of work will be a growing market for legal publishers – but only if they are priced low enough. Price it too high, and the personal copy becomes a questionable decision.
Additionally, if law firms aren’t picking up the tab, they will still see value (for the short term) in keeping a few print copies around. For West, that means an opportunity to sell the same content in multiple formats. It also means the original print market isn’t disrupted by forcing it to compete for the same purchase dollars.
Group subscription pricing models will inevitably come along, but when is difficult to say. Until that time comes, however, legal pubishers like West are simply missing out on a window of business opportunity.
[via vancouverlawlib]
