One of the most notable take-aways for me was the over arching focus on the speed of innovation – and more specifically that innovation is moving so rapidly that a digital still camera released today has a product life of 3 to 6 months. iPhones have had their current 3G version publicly available for less than a year, and many are calling for a product update as soon as this week.

One of the most notable moments for me came when this card was flashed on the screen:

We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. – Bill Gates.

Looking at this another way, a lot of times adoption is more critical than innovation, and an innovator often has to be prepared to go slower in order to move faster. This can mean letting competitors achieve what is often referred to as the First Mover “Advantage,” although it’s so rarely advantageous to move first that this catch phrase becomes somewhat of an oxymoron. The (unlevel) playing field is littered with first movers who had a great technology or the next best thing but who were quashed (or bought for pennies on the dollar) by larger organizations with better lawyers.

For me, the matter of patents and intellectual property is becoming more and more distressing. Canadian innovation giant RIM had its stock – the capitalization it needed for growth – battered for years because a company called NTP claimed RIM was using concepts, specifically sending emails to wireless devices, and that this constituted infringement. They settled out of court for more than $600 Million.

Now, it’s important to note something here: NTP doesn’t actually make any technology that sends or receives wireless email. Nor have they actually developed a working prototype of such a device. In fact, they didn’t actually come up with the idea, they bought it off someone else. Moreover, and this is what gets me… NTP doesn’t actually make or do anything – their whole business is licensing patents they’ve acquired from other sources.

What does this mean for innovation? Well, for one thing, it means that businesses can be stifled even before they’re initiated! This could mean that if I have a general idea for a business, I may very well have to license the idea from someone else (if they’re willing to license it to me), despite the fact that I may have a working prototype, business model and even several million customers. Consider: What if Alexander Graham Bell had built the telephone, only to discover that someone else had patented “two-way voice communication over electric wires”? What if Thomas Edison had lit that bulb but then found out that Tesla owned the rights to “Electric Illumination Devices”. If you think that these seem far-fetched and frivolous, I would encourage you to look into Amazon’s One Click Purchasing Patent.

There’s some good news, though:

1. Patent law is under review and we should see patent tort reform and hopefully some relief soon.
2. Patents are jurisdictional, meaning that what’s patented in the US may be clear in places like the EU and China;
3. Creative commons licensing and the open source communities are gaining steam and visibility (not to mention credibility);
4. And finally, the speed of products is rendering the protection of unimplemented intellectual property relatively moot.

Marshal McLuhan said “Invention is the mother of necessities,” and as product life-cycles move faster and faster and increasingly require global adoption in order to stay competitive, the need to protect ideas becomes less important. The ephemeral nature of our consumption demands new features and new extensions with alarming frequency. This means that building the better mousetrap, and not just dreaming one up, is indeed becoming the way to get the world to keep walking that well-worn path to your door.

“…the bill is flawed and should not be passed in its current state…”

“Canada had an opportunity to set an example for what 21st-century copyright should be but, instead, has subscribed to the traditional views of certain entertainment industry proponents.”

You can read the full column here.

Michael Geist has provided links and analysis to one of the versions of the official Liberal response to constituent concerns, Jame’s Bow’s open letter to Industry Minister Prentice, and a few other notable presentations and opinions on the matter.

It’s interesting to see the big issues coming forward, most eloquently put by Mr. Bow:

“Our justice system demands that we be considered innocent until proven guilty. It is shameful to have companies assume that because we want the ability to format shift or time shift or cut and paste, that we will misuse it.”

While he cites several examples (some of which are actually incorrect) of format shifting that would become illegal under this bill, it’s this statement that rings the most true and is the absolute log-line of the problems with this bill:

“Furthermore, the lack of protections offered by this bill to quote from, parody or criticize copyrighted material disturb me… The new legislation makes it much more difficult to quote supporting material in academic essays… This is a significant imposition on academic freedom in this country, and it could potentially restrict our freedom of speech.

As you run for a party which has argued in favour of personal property rights, I’m surprised that you no longer see fit to protect the right of Canadians to watch what they want, when they want, and how they want after they have legally purchased their song, video or software.”

Again, the full letter can be found here:

Please add your comments about Net Neutrality to the CRTC’s Consultations site.

Links:
David Canton’s Commentary
Michael Geist – CRTC New Media Consultation

Michael Geist is indicating that the Canadian copyright reform measures that the Conservative government has been advancing is again in play. There are many points at issue here, including:

• A lack of transparency in the legal process that has the appearance of cronyism and capitulation to special interest (including the US government and US industry);
• A degree of hypocrisy on the part of the Conservatives (by refusing to ‘ratify’ the WIPO treaty as per Canadian law);
• A serious retraction of fair use that we already enjoy as Canadians (e.g. copying a CD to iTunes would become an infraction);
• Virtually no expansion of fair use to cover academic and personal use (e.g. recording a show for later viewing on a DVR or VCR is currently an infraction, and there is no provision in the ‘reform’ plans to provide relief for this);
• A copyright law that is heavily tilted in favour of private interest and industry, rather than truly fair use policy for all Canadians.

It’s this last issue that is the log line for me… Overly protectionist copyright law has the net effect of harming society and industry as it seeks to restrict (artificially) the flow of information and innovation. One need look no further than Orson Scott Card’s commentary on the J.K. Rowling copyright suit to see a prime illustration of this point.

At the end of the day, fair use is not about piracy (although apparently piracy has its merits too). Rather, fair use is about consumer choice, consumer rights, and protection from an industry that thrives on re-selling (sorry, licensing), the same materials over and over again, with no substantive difference beyond format.

The Canadian government has a responsibility to both citizens and industry. Dr. Geist has laid out a very clear, objective, and ultimately fair method for achieving that balance. It’s critical that the minority Conservative government recognizes this.

Link to Michael Geist’s Blog