Jun 14

Linux doesn’t have a CEO. Consequently, there’s no annual keynote hosted by a charismatic alpha male. But if it did, and if there were a conference covering the first half of this year, the first speech would start with three words: ‘Linux is winning’.

Firstly, a market research firm in the US called The NPD Group revealed that sales of Google’s Android platform overtook those of Apple’s iPhone in the first quarter of 2010, propelling itself into second place behind the waning RIM. Android is becoming increasingly competitive, spanning both the smartphone and the emerging tablet markets, with devices from Dell and HP on the near horizon. This might be why Apple has started a patent infringement lawsuit against HTC, using many of its Android-based phones as physical exhibits in its litigation.

Secondly, Google announced its intention to open source the VP8 video codec. This was acquired when it bought On2 earlier in the year and it will be used alongside Vorbis and the MKV container to create Google’s WebM video format. This is vitally important for Linux. The nascent H.264 format, as used by Apple and many HTML5 video streams, is encumbered by patents, and current open-source implementations live under the shadow of legislation. VP8 and WebM have the potential to match it for quality, and while WebM will undoubtedly attract similar litigious trouble, having an umbrella the size of Google should satisfy many Linux distributions, especially when Mozilla, Opera and Adobe have already pledged their support.

Finally, the UK’s new coalition government has published its Programme for Government. There are two points in the section on Transparency that are great news for free software. One states, “We will create a level playing field for open-source software,” while the other adds, “We will ensure that all data published by public bodies is published in an open and standardised format, so that it can be used easily and with minimal cost by third parties.” If these promises come true, it will transform attitudes to open-source software and Linux, and hopefully open the door for its use within government and schools, two areas where it’s ideal.

Many of us used to think that for Linux to be judged a success, it had to be installed and running on more desktop computers than Microsoft Windows. And there are great swathes of Linux users who still feel the same way. But the world of computing has changed. There’s more than one way of judging the success of something that started as just a good idea.

Windows, Linux and OS X are survivors. They’ve lasted this long because they exist within their own ecosystems. Linux, for example, is fed by a curious mixture of enterprise investment, embedded hardware vendors and a community brimming full of zealous commitment. There’s a low-cost threshold to entry and a subsystem that maintains itself with very little investment. It’s these factors that have shaped how it looks, how it feels and how it’s operated.

The ecosystems inhabited by both Microsoft and Apple are equally well-adapted to their environments. The former is the domain of the utilitarians, offering straight functionality for an up-front price. The latter is an increasingly important fusion of fashion and function. But things have changed. The borders between the ecosystems have become indistinct. Apple has surpassed Microsoft in market value, winning thousands of new fans through it’s no-fuss interfaces and lower prices. There’s a shift in the balance of power.

And thanks to Google, Linux is becoming less free and less open, proving that in the new markets where it’s having the most commercial success, it’s becoming more like Apple. ROMs are encrypted and need to be rooted for user-hacking, third-party applications have to be sold through a single vendor and personal information is held in the cloud by a sole provider. If Linux wants a taste of similar success, it might find it if it makes similar concessions to a user’s freedom.

But then we’d have failed. The Linux ecosystem would have become too polluted, bogged down by sponsored kernel additions, paid-for support and short life cycles. It may be a commercial success, but no longer an active one. Our hypothetical CEO might make further compromises, and make judgements against the interest of Linux users. Which is exactly why we don’t have a CEO, and exactly why the success of open-source software is so difficult to judge using the same language as its competitors.

May 06

The run up to this election has seen politicians promoting themselves more via Twitter feeds or Facebook groups than by kissing babies in the street. Clearly this shows us technophiles that today’s politicians are embracing the internet age – or does it? How much of this is just posturing? Did the empty seats in the House of Commons during the debate over the Digital Economy Act indicate that most MPs didn’t understand the Act’s impact, or that they just didn’t care? We decided to find out just what technology policies the different parties are offering, and interviewed the people who will be writing the tech manifesto for their parties if they win the election. There are some impressive claims being bandied about.

Parliament could have a very different look depending on your vote. (Parliamentary images reproduced with permission of Parliament)

Labour has been very vocal about its technology policies, not least its Digital Economy Act. This gives the government the right to block sites infringing copyright and ban downloaders from accessing the internet. They are also championing rolling out high-speed internet (well, 2Mbps) for everyone by 2012 and “superfast” 100Mbps broadband for 90 per cent of the population by 2017.

The Conservatives also want super-fast broadband for most of the country (which would be achieved by opening up BT’s infrastructure to other companies) and would reduce the corporation tax rate to encourage new technology businesses to set up in the UK.

The Liberal Democrats were vociferous in their opposition to the Digital Economy Act, and have plans to uphold net neutrality and overhaul copyright law. They too want high-speed broadband for all.

So just what are the most important tech policies for each party? Read on to see.

Conservative party

Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Our key policy to promote the technology industry is to ensure that Britain has a modern, fast broadband infrastructure. We will deregulate the market and force BT to give access to its underground ducts and overhead telegraph poles to rival ISPs. This will allow ISPs to lay their own fibre at a lower cost, and a super-fast broadband-supporting fibre network will be established over much larger parts of the UK. Funding, where needed, would come from the Digital Switchover segment of the licence fee.”

What about the technological economy? “It’s vital that we encourage technology companies to set up in the UK. We’ll cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p or lower and the small companies’ rate to 20p, funded by reducing complex allowances.”

What in the Tories’ opinion have Labour got wrong? “An over reliance on massive-scale IT projects that have gone over budget and not been delivered on time. We will create a level playing field for open-source IT in government procurement and open up government IT contracts to [smaller companies] by breaking up large IT projects into smaller components.”

  • Super-fast broadband for all: Will deregulate the market and open up BT’s infrastructure to competitors. Paid for using the Digital Switchover section of the BBC licence fee.
  • Right to data: Statistics like street-by-street crime levels and power consumption of Government buildings to be put online.
  • Government to use open-source IT: Cost of large-scale IT projects would be reduced.
  • Cap government IT projects at £100m: Would let smaller IT companies help out.
  • Corporation tax reduction: Corporation tax rate reduced to 25p to attract tech companies.

Labour Party

Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Labour wants Britain to be the world leader in the digital economy. We will create over 250,000 skilled jobs by 2020 and [become] the world leader in public service delivery. “We will ensure universal access to today’s broadband services at 2Mbps by 2012 – this will be delivered through upgrades to the existing networks and be supported with public funding including the underspend from the Digital Switchover Help scheme.”

“The Digital Economy Act is a key part of our active industrial strategy, helping us maintain and build on the digital economy. It ensures a competitive digital communications infrastructure [and] protects intellectual property. The Conservatives offered no practical solutions on [either] of these.”

Labour also has plans for a new technology institute: “The Institute of Web Science will be based in Britain and will work with government and business to realise the social and economic benefits of technological advances. It will assemble the best of the world’s scientists and researchers and be headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the leading web science expert Professor Nigel Shadbolt.”

  • High-speed broadband: 2Mbps for all by 2012, paid for by a fixed telephone line levy of 50p a month. 100Mbps for 90 per cent of the country by 2017.
  • Government to use cloud computing: Would save £3.2billion annually
  • Digital Economy Act: Passed to provide a competitive digital communications infrastructure and protect intellectual property.
  • Home Access scheme: Reduce the number of non-internet users by 60 per cent by 2014.
  • Will increase scope of data.gov.uk: More previously private government data online.

Liberal Democrats

We asked Don Foster, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which Lib Dem policies would interest a PC Plus reader. “Our policies on broadband roll-out and extending IT skills, and the work we’ve done on the Digital Economy Bill,” he answered. “The more people who have the skills and access to make use of technology, the more useful it becomes.

“We do not believe that the country’s broadband infrastructure can be left solely to market forces, which is why we advocate an outside-in use of public funds to begin delivering broadband from day one to rural areas. The market will deliver the infrastructure in urban areas.”

How would the Liberal Democrats attract tech companies to the UK? “We support the proposed tax break for the video games industry and we will also tackle the growing burden of red tape, which continues to cost businesses increasing amounts of time.”

What was the current Government’s biggest technology mistake? “Not prioritising the Digital Economy Bill in debate. The Bill was an opportunity to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the internet. The government’s unwillingness to give the Bill the time necessary for proper parliamentary scrutiny shows how low in their priorities it sat.”

  • Superfast broadband for all: Would use public funds to get broadband for everybody available straight away.
  • Support for tech business: Tax breaks for video-games companies and high-tech industries to encourage growth.
  • Overhaul copyright law: Update laws to reflect the technology of modern-day society.
  • Support for net neutrality: Would strongly oppose blocking of internet sites.

Small parties with big tech policies

What do the smaller parties contending for parliamentary seats offer to people passionate about the web, computers and technology? We spoke to five and found out. We also asked which of the policies that the big three parties were proposing could, in their opinion, damage the internet and technological development.
During our fact-finding mission we found much of interest. The Communist Party want to make tech-literacy part of the educational process as they feel computers are no longer a luxury, but a necessity. The Green party think broadband should be a fixed-rate service available to all. The Pirate Party UK are all about free speech – and not just on the internet. They want to ensure that personal privacy is a priority of government and industry. Plaid Cymru want an ultra-fast national broadband network and the SNP aren’t sure the Digital Economy Act goes far enough. The last word goes to the Monster Raving Loony Party, who, when contacted said: “What on earth are you talking about? Don’t be so serious.”

Ben Stevenson, National Secretary, Communist Party

www.communist-party.org.uk

“There are IT-related issues important to us. We oppose the Digital Economy Act, a sop to international big business. We recognise the need for a far-reaching and proactive approach to ensure all citizens can access all aspects of technology. It’s obvious that the speed of the technological revolution has made basic access and experience in using computers and the internet a necessity. Britain’s Broadband speed currently ranks 17th in the world, 23 times slower than Japan. We need an integrated communications strategy to bridge the gap. Education is essential to ensuring that tech-literacy is considered a vital part of modern life in Britain. IT needs to be given greater prominence in the National Curriculum and to be fully integrated into all its aspects.”

Andy Robinson, Party Leader, Pirate Party

www.pirateparty.org.uk

“We don’t just know what technology is, we know how it works and how it has affected our society. In the modern age, existing copyright and patent laws do not make sense. Our policy is to shorten the duration of copyright to five years, and to allow the sharing of copyrighted material provided that no profit comes of it.

The Digital Economy Act is a terrible piece of legislation. It legitimises corporate spying on individuals, forces ISPs to throttle or even ‘suspend’ connections based only on allegations of infringement and allows copyright holders to demand ISPs censor websites on the flimsiest of evidence. PPUK is unquestionably against these policies.”

Caroline Lucas, Party Leader, Green Party

www.greenparty.org.uk

“The Green Party believes that the development of computer communications has reached the point where BT should have an obligation to provide broadband-capable infrastructure to every household. Funding for marginal ‘uneconomic’ lines may come from a small levy on every access line. The principle of universal access at the same base price to the household should prevail.

Many of us believe that [the Digital Economy Bill] threatens to infringe fundamental human rights through the disconnection of internet accounts and the new ‘website blocking’ laws could result in new ways to suppress free speech and legitimate activity.”

Lowri Jackson, Research and Policy, Plaid Cymru

www.plaidcymru.org

“Connecting Wales to the world digitally will encourage innovation and job creation. We believe that new technology must be harnessed to provide Wales with a strong voice on the global stage and to ensure that there are no communication ‘not spots’. We call for research into the construction of a super-fast national broadband network. We also support compulsory network sharing between mobile phone and broadband operators. Westminster can learn a lot from the National Assembly with its transparent and democratic processes. We’re also concerned about the threat to our civil liberties implied by increased internet monitoring, and will campaign for freedom of the internet.”

Pete Wishart, Culture and Broadcasting, Scottish National Party

www.snp.org

“While the ambition to secure universal broadband access is to be welcomed, more must be done to protect those who are working in our creative economy. Our creative industries contribute significantly to the economy and are a key route to economic recovery, yet protection for artists and creators remains an afterthought. Writing letters to persistent downloaders and threatening slower internet speeds seems a feeble response to the loss of millions of pounds of income to artists and creators. What is needed is a mixture of effective technical measures and creative solutions, but above all the political will to tackle this problem.”


Question time with the Pirate Party

For some political parties technology is the reason they exist, and it seems to be paying off. The Swedish Pirate Party caused a stir last year when it gained two seats in the European Parliament. The UK’s Pirate Party has the same three core platforms: reform copyright and patent law, end ‘excessive’ surveillance of innocent people and ensure ‘real’ freedom of speech. But all these issues have possible downsides. We asked Pirate Party UK’s leader Andy Robinson if its policies would actually work in the real world.

PCP: Surely reforming copyright and patent law will damage British businesses?

Andy Robinson: There are always winners and losers when any law changes. Reforming copyright law will reduce the power of record industry ‘rights-holders’ to dictate what music we get to hear and what we don’t. It will also benefit lesser-known musicians who don’t want to sign away future royalties to get their music heard. Reforming patent laws to fix problems like the ring-fencing of huge areas by overly broad patents will increase competition and reduce red-tape. A better regime would encourage manufacturing and design investment, boosting the economy at no cost to taxpayers.

Did you know it’s illegal to sing Happy birthday in public without paying a fee? The Pirate Party would like to put an end to this.

PCP: Isn’t surveillance central to UK security?

AR: A certain degree of surveillance is necessary, but we urgently need to set sensible limits on it. Vehicles are being tracked: the police’s automatic number plate recognition camera network takes 14 million photos a day. We need rules that say how much is too much, before we sleepwalk into a surveillance state.

PCP: One man’s freedom of speech is another man’s persecution. How do you intend to protect the weaker and less vocal in society from the strongest and loudest?

AR: New media outlets empower many of the people who were previously disempowered to have their say. The best counter to persecution is not censorship, but education. Teaching people to get together and stand up for themselves is far better than short-term measures taken just so politicians can be seen to be doing something. That said, we support current equality legislation banning unfair discrimination and would not change this policy.

PCP: Where do you stand on more prosaic issues like internet speed?

AR: Consumers have been complaining about this for years. We plan a system where payment will be based on the speed the user actually gets, not the advertised headline speed. Of course, we’ll be unable to achieve any of our aims, prosaic or otherwise, without votes or the support of donations through our site (www.ppuk.it/donate).

Mar 19

What do patents think they are, eh? Coming in here, hoarding all our perfectly shareable technologies, talking in a barely understandable language of their own, eh? It’s terrible! They’re holding this fine country of ours back 20 years! What next? Shall we patent the act of purchasing a product using money so they can take over our retail establishments too? Even better, let us patent the act of drawing air into meaty sacks using a diaphragm! That’s sure to be a money-spinner. I’m not a filthy patentist, of course. No. I think they should be allowed to live. They just ought to keep quiet and stay in the patent office where they belong.

These patent / immigrant jokes doing it for you? Thought not.

In among the nonsense, I’m making a vaguely serious point: patents and the stupid legal squabbling that goes with them are holding technology back like a playground bully stunts the emotional growth of an awkward nerd. Look at Apple’s public and obviously duplicitous fight with HTC. To the cynical outsider it seems to have nothing to do with patents at all. Apple is barking and growling, its attitude based solely on professional malice, baring its teeth against any other manufacturer that dares sniff around the territory urine-marked as Apple’s own. It picks on HTC because a fight with bull mastiff Google might not end altogether pleasantly. I could understand a measure of stroppiness if the iPhone UI were being ripped off wholesale, but interface elements like multitouch control simply should not be reserved for a single company. They’re fundamentals. They are base functions that will help carry computing into the next decade. They’re the glue that holds mobile devices together. If these things have been put together from scratch, with none of the originating code, the fact that they do a similar job is irrelevant to me. It’s just healthy competition, isn’t it?

What if someone litigious held the patent for the keyboard? Or how about the ‘finger-based input device’? I would hope that a court would bash their unreasonable claims for dominance down, but I can’t be sure that they would.

I note with interest that snarling Apple isn’t yet spitting venom at Microsoft over the patents which are no doubt infringed upon in Windows Mobile 7, perhaps because WM7 isn’t yet on the shelves. An early pre-release battle will lead to a subtle change in technology, not a hefty and embarrassing payout, which I’m not sure is the desired result of all this.

Lest you accuse me of unfairly picking on Apple (again), let me remind you that this sort of thing has happened before. In 2002 BT exhumed from its vault a crumbling, dusty patent for the hyperlink, the fundamental building block of the internet. It then loaded its cannon and fired a lawyer at the broadside of ailing ISP Prodigy, presumably as a test case prior to levying a hyperlink tax on the entire internet. The case was dismissed, luckily, on the grounds that the exact text of BT’s patent didn’t match the exact use of the hyperlink in the field, but the antisocial and anti-competitive precedent set has carried forward, and it’s not likely to die out.

I am aware that my opinion makes something of a mockery of the patent system. Yes, there’s a very strong case to be made for protecting intellectual property in this day and age, and I do think the inventors of excellent things deserve a shred of market advantage. But let’s all just play nice, shall we?