Computers News » The Future of Android, Part 1: The Legal Squeeze

Android is developing a huge and growing following among consumers. Android devices made by a wide variety of manufacturers are attracting millions of customers every week. But its popularity has also made it a lawsuit target. Players from all corners of the tech world have put Android in the legal cross hairs, claiming the open source mobile OS is crawling with patent violations.

To say Android's popular among consumers is like saying Godzilla's a lizard. It's a question of degree.

More than 500,000 new Android devices were being activated daily, and the number was growing at 4.4 percent week over week, Google's (Nasdaq: GOOG) Andy Rubin tweeted in late June.

comScore's figures show that for the three-month period ending in May, Android was the leading mobile platform in the United States, with 38 percent of the market.

However, Android is facing considerable legal problems, and that might slow down its surge somewhat.

Oracle's (Nasdaq: ORCL) suing Google over Android, while Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) are suing Android device manufacturers over patent issues. Gemalto, which bills itself as the world leader in digital security solutions, is suing both Google and some Android device makers.

Can Android survive these legal challenges, or will Google have to overhaul the operating system -- and take a beating while doing so?

Neither Google nor Gemalto responded to requests for comment by press time.

The Legal Armlock on Android

Microsoft, long considered Public Enemy Number One to many in the Linux and open source communities, claims ownership of patents on several technologies used in Android.

It is collecting royalties from various Android mobile device manufacturers, including HTC, Wistron and the Itronix division of defense contractor General Dynamics.

Microsoft has also filed suit against Samsung, Motorola (NYSE: MMI) and Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS) over their use of Android.

Meanwhile, Apple is suing HTC and Samsung for patent infringement, and it's believed Cupertino wants to establish a precedent for gleaning high royalties on Android devices by getting HTC to knuckle under.

Apple both filed suit in court and filed claims with the United States International Trade Commission, asking the latter to ban imports of Samsung and HTC devices running Android.

Google Gets Bashed Over IP

Then there's Gemalto, which bills itself as the world's leader in digital security.

Gemalto has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google, HTC, Motorola and Samsung for the use of its innovations in the Android OS; the Dalvik virtual machine, which is at Android's core; and associated development tools and products -- the Android SDKs Google has released.

Finally, there's the granddaddy of all litigious patent-holders, Oracle. Fresh off a court victory that let it crush arch-rival SAP (NYSE: SAP) and collect US1.3 billion in compensation, and while duking it out in court with HP (NYSE: HPQ) over the Itanium chip, Oracle filed suit against Google for patent and copyright infringement over Java, which it now owns following its purchase of Sun Microsystems.
No Gain, No Pain

There's speculation that Apple's driven by concern that Android is overtaking it in the smartphone market.

The success of Android -- which is predicted to dominate the global smartphone market by August 2012 -- may also lay behind the other attacks on the operating system and on Google.

There's apparently a lot of money to be made from royalties on the Android OS. It's reported that Microsoft's making more money from HTC over its Android patents than it is from its own Windows Phone 7 mobile operating system.
Consumers Will Reap the Whirlwind

Ultimately, the consumer will suffer the consequences if Android device manufacturers or Google lose in court.

Android device makers might be hit hard if they were legally barred from incorporating multitouch and zoom and other technologies Apple and other parties are claiming rights over.

"If Apple was the only one that could offer a polished touch experience and OEMs have to go back and figure out a totally different way of doing things, that would be a challenge," suggested Peter Farago, vice president of marketing at Flurry.

Still, Android device makers might be able to survive that. And if they and Google lose on patent rulings, it will only make Android devices more expensive.

However, Android might be more severely hurt if Apple wins favorable rulings from the ITC.

"I'm concerned that Apple will not have the same interests as Microsoft, which is reportedly making more money off their licensing off HTC Android devices than it does on Windows Phone 7 so it won't want to kill the golden goose," Michael Morgan, a senior analyst at ABI Research, said.

"Apple doesn't need to do that," Morgan told LinuxInsider.

An administrative judge at the ITC has already issued a preliminary ruling against HTC on two of the four patents at dispute with Apple. Having that ruling overturned by the full ITC commission is an uphill task.

"HTC will have to overcome a number of procedural hurdles just to get heard," Julie Machal-Fulks, a partner at Scott & Scott, told LinuxInsider.

A ruling in favor of Apple could see HTC's devices, at least, banned from importation into the U.S., an outcome Apple is also seeking in its complaint against Samsung before the ITC.

Under Section 337 of the Smoot-HawleyTariff Act of 1930, the ITC has the power to block the importation of products deemed to constitute unfair practices in import, Fulks said.
The Best Things in Life Aren't Free

Perhaps the real problem with Android is that Google has few patents of its own for the operating system, according to Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group.

"Google lacks a strong patent defense because they don't own much of the intellectual property they sell," Enderle told LinuxInsider. This means Oracle's chances of winning its suit against Google are "good," Enderle said.

"Intellectual property is the fly in the soup of using free and open source software," Carl Howe, director of anywhere consumer research, told LinuxInsider.

"The good news is that the software is free. The bad news is that there's no entity who will take all the risk that the open source software infringes patents," Howe added.

"Apple wants to shut Android down, and Microsoft and Oracle want royalties from it; it's on the fast track to be the most expensive free product ever created," Enderle stated.

"P.T. Barnum would be so proud," he added./technewsworld

Computers News » Apple Names Prices for Seats in Its iCloud

More information is trickling forth about iCloud, Apple's upcoming syncing and online storage service. The company's expanded on the prices it will charge for various levels of cloud data storage, and it's also shown a preview of the iCloud Web apps customers will be able to use alongside their iOS and Mac OS X devices.

Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) has disclosed the pricing for iCloud storage and launched a limited beta version.

Users of iCloud storage get the first 5 GB free, as stated when Cupertino announced iCloud in June.

Additional storage will cost US$2 per GB.

Meanwhile, a preview of iCloud's suite of Web apps seems to be available for a select few developers. The iCloud apps run in the latest version of Safari on Mac OS X Lion. They include an address book, a calendar and a mail app, according to Darrell Etherington of GigaOm, who posted a screencast of the apps in action.

These apps resemble their counterparts in Mac OS X Lion, Etherington said. They are reportedly available to only some Apple ID and MobileMe account holders and some developers.


Charges for iCloud Storage

Users who need more than the initial 5 GB of storage in the iCloud will be charged annual fees. It will cost them $20 for an additional 10 GB, $40 for an additional 20 GB and $50 for an additional 50 GB.

However, online cloud storage costs much less at other providers.

Dropbox offers 2 GB free in its basic plan. Its Pro 50 plan costs $10 a month for 50 GB of storage, and the Pro 100 costs $20 a month for 100 GB.

The company offers storage for devices running Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, iOS and BlackBerry OS.

Box offers personal users up to 50 GB free. Businesses with three to 500 users pay $15 per user per month for 500 GB. Enterprises get unlimited data and have to call in for charges.

The company lets users work with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Docs online.

Adrive, which offers storage for Windows, Macs and Linux devices, offers 50 GB free storage and backup for individual use.

Its Signature plan offers 50 GB of storage with additional features not available in the personal plan, for $70 a year. The Premium service, available in capacities of 100 GB and up, starts at $140 a year.


The Value of Apple Pricing

On closer examination, Apple's charges for iCloud storage are not quite as steep as they might seem. Recall that Apple doesn't count Photo Stream images against the free 5 GB of iCloud storage every user gets.

Books and iTunes media don't count toward the 5 GB initial allotment either.

"The important thing to be aware of when people use online storage is what they use it for primarily," Bob O'Donnell, a vice president of research at IDC, told MacNewsWorld.

"What takes up the most space on your hard drive?" O'Donnell asked. "Music and photos.

"So, if you take those away, how much space will you take up on your hard drive? Not much," he added.

"So you can't do an apples to apples comparison when it comes to online storage," O'Donnell concluded.

That's a point of view shared by Box cofounder and CEO Aaron Levie.

"Apple's iCloud service is priced competitively for the consumer online storage market, and its entry will create new awareness and excitement about the benefits of storing photos, music and other media in the cloud," Levie told MacNewsWorld.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment by press time.


The Competitive Cloudscape

Apple will probably be restricted to its core user base for the foreseeable future, Dmitriy Molchanov, an analyst at the Yankee Group, suggested.

For one thing, a Yankee Group survey found that only 13 percent of consumers expressed high interest in digital lockers and cloud storage.

Further, when those respondents who had expressed interest in cloud storage were asked to evaluate their impressions of various cloud storage brands, including Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN), Apple, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Google, they put Google at the top.

Google got 88 percent of those respondents' interest, Amazon 82 percent, Apple 71 percent and Microsoft 70 percent, Molchanov said.

"Apple has correctly tailored iCloud to current iOS device owners," Molchanov told MacNewsWorld. "This strategy will pay dividends in an environment where Amazon has beaten Apple on price and consumer awareness," he added.


Apps in the iCloud

The Web apps on iCloud further boost the iCloud's competitive stance.

"You can both work on and view documents in the iCloud," Laura DiDio, principal at ITIC, told MacNewsWorld.

"Google and Microsoft have been in the market longer, so they do have a head start with their cloud apps, but I think Apple's going to be running furiously to catch up," DiDio said./technewsworld

Computers Review » Taming the Lion: A Week With Apple's Latest Mac OS X

Mac OS X Lion catapults the user into Apple's touchy-feely future. New gestures and full-screen options bring the user to a new level of control, if you have the right peripherals. Safari has been improved, and what used to be called "Expose" has learned new skills and been renamed "Mission Control." But be advised: You will have to rejigger your brain.

I'll admit, for a few hours, especially when TextEdit and Preview were crashing upon launch and I was having trouble adjusting to the new "unnatural" direction of mousing, I thought I had made a terrible mistake upgrading to Mac OS X Lion on launch day. How was I going to get any work done?

With 250 new features, Lion offers a solid upgrade, especially when you consider the price is just US$29.99. Of the 250 new features, though, there's a handful that have the potential to impact the everyday use of your Mac, as well as propel you into a new touch-focused Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) future. Understanding and using these features will determine your success with Lion.


Rethinking How You Interact With Your Mac

In an introductory Lion video, Craig Federighi, Apple vice president of OS X software, cuts to the chase when he says, "Lion is so exciting because we were able to really step back and rethink the desktop user experience."

Lion is exciting, and Apple did rethink the interface. The company claims that no company has invested more in perfecting gestures than Apple. To sum up the new desktop experience, which is a lot like the iPad and iPhone experience, "You just push the content the way you want to go."
The Desktop Screen as a Surface

If you're a longtime computer user who uses an Apple Magic Mouse or scroll wheel mouse, the key to surviving Lion is to stop fighting your old instincts and start building a new metaphor in your mind: The screen is a surface, and to move the surface you touch and push.

There are two visual tricks that work for me. The first is to consider the screen like pieces of paper on a table. If you want to move the paper on the table with a finger, you push, slide and flick. Scrollable lists, for example, are another matter. The new Mail application features a three-pane style in which your Inbox or folders can show you a scrollable list of all your mail with a few lines of preview text. Since Lion's scroll bars by default don't seem to exist until you flick or scroll to make them appear, scrolling can be disorienting, because the direction to make the content move is the exact opposite as it was in Snow Leopard and previous Mac OS generations.

To rejigger my mind, I imagine the scrollable list to be like the selector wheel in the built-in iOS Clock app on my iPhone -- flick to spin. Obviously a big, long list of email is more oblong than a round clock wheel, but the image helped my brain make the transition.

Around the Web, others have expressed similar discomfort in Apple's new scroll method, but most seem to be able to adjust within a few days. It took me two days. Now it feels pretty natural, but that comes with a new challenge. When I use a Snow Leopard-running Mac, I can't get it to do what I want until I realize I have to go old school. And as a frequent Windows users, too, I'm having the same problem: I'm going to have to move everything to Lion or become bilingual in how I see screens and interact with content.


New Gestures

To get the full Lion experience, you're going to want to have a multi-touch Magic Trackpad or a new MacBook with a multi-touch trackpad. I have an aging MacBook and a Magic Mouse. The Magic Mouse lets me use some of the new gestures, but not all. The best use of my Magic Mouse is being able to swipe over into Dashboard to snag a quick look at widgets, then swipe back, use a two-finger double-tap to launch Mission Control, and swipe back to previously viewed Web pages in Safari.

Because I'm really starting to appreciate and enjoy the new content-pushing interaction with Lion, I'll likely splurge and buy a Magic TrackPad so I can take better advantage of all the new gestures.


Full-Screen Action

Apple seems to think people need to move to full-screen apps in order to mirror iOS and to be able to concentrate on one app at a time. I don't have much trouble with immersion or ignoring background windows, but the extra screen real estate is handy when you're really trying to work through something with maximum efficiency.

If you're on a smaller-screen device like a MacBook, the extra space is quite nice. On my 24-inch external monitor, though, there's not much need for me to go full-screen with the new Mail app, for instance, or redesigned Address Book. iCal, though, always seems better to me the larger it is.


Mission Control

The new Mission Control is a lot like the old Expose, just a bit more comprehensive and consistent. With Expose, I used to use a hot mouse corner to explode my desktop for quick inspection of the elements I was working on, which let me switch to whatever it was I wanted. Mission Control is more predictable in how it shows applications and elements, giving me a possible sub-second improvement over Expose. What I do like, though, is how Mission Control treats full-screen apps in full-screen mode -- easy to find and get in and out of.

Browsing many pages in Safari is another matter. Mission control stacks up all your Safari windows, which makes it harder to find the right browser window when you had many open. There is a nifty new feature that helps, though. If you take a Safari browser window full-screen (button in the upper right corner), Mission Control will treat just that window like a full-screen app. This is particularly cool when you're working with a Web-based application. Nice job, Apple!


Safari Gets Better

The new Safari also makes navigating the Web a better experience than ever before in two key ways. The first is that you can create a bookmark for a set of open tabs. Click the bookmark again, and boom, all those tabs will open. Not a new feature to other browsers, but it has been a long-time coming for Safari.

Apple also added a new Reading List pane. It's a left-side column that lets you add Web pages to create a list of things you want to read, keeping them handy and front and center. I used to drag a lot of URLs to my desktop to not only save them but also ensure that I noticed them again in the future. Now I just add them to my Reading List.


On the Launchpad

In Snow Leopard, I used to use the Applications folder that was added to the Dock. One click, and you get a long list of all your applications in alphabetical order. It works great, so when I saw the iOS-like Launchpad, I was thinking, "Eh, not sure that I can really use this glitzy little thing." Then I realized that I could move the applications around into swipeable pages (like the iPhone or iPad) and group them into folders. (This ability to swipe and invoke Lauchpad through gestures is a key reason a new Magic Trackpad is in my future.)

So now, for example, I can group all my photo and video editing apps into a single folder. In the future, I won't have to remember an app's name in order to find it if I only use it a few times a year.


Let's Resume

In Snow Leopard, I always dreaded needing to shut down and go mobile. Sure, I could put my MacBook to sleep, but often enough you want to shut everything down to save on battery life. That meant closing all my open windows, and often enough, that would be quite a few Safari browser windows. But with Resume, if you close an application, it will reopen right from where you left off. If you have several open windows, Safari will reopen those windows. If you close Pages with a document open, it'll relaunch with the document open -- and saved from where you left it. This is pretty darn cool. I still find myself obsessively saving documents (an old, ingrained habit), but it's a need that's heading toward extinction.

The only downside that I can see right now is privacy. If you're working on Christmas gift list, for example, you'll want to pay attention and close the document before you close the application; otherwise the gift list (or whatever you had open) will open when a family member launches the app.

Along these same lines, Lion has the built-in ability to keep track of all your "versions" of documents. I personally don't have much call for going back in time and finding old versions, but if you're the kind of person who does, this could be handy.

For households with multiple Lion-based Macs, a new feature called "AirDrop" has the potential to make sharing files easier than ever. Just find the person's Mac, drag the content to "air drop it" and boom, you'll have an easy WiFi-based transfer without any networking hoopla to mess with. Obviously it becomes more powerful when you're hanging out with others who have Lion, too.


One Little Hiccup So Far - the Animations

Lion, it turns out, has all these subtle little animation activities that make the desktop seem to come alive, like windows that start small and then explode to their final large size. On my old MacBook, these animations aren't as smooth as I'd like to see. The worst offending shift comes from moving an application in and out of full-screen mode. The animation probably looks wicked cool in a fast and subtle way on a faster Mac, but on my MacBook, it's clunky. I'm not knocking Lion here, just acknowledging that my hardware isn't up to snuff. I fully expect a smoother experience with newer models that have better graphics processing capabilities.

All in all, if you're thinking about moving to Lion, you should know two things: 1) think about content as being on a surface, and 2) you'll want to become familiar with gestures, if not invest in a Magic Trackpad. If you hit the settings and preferences hard, you can de-Lion Lion into something more akin to Snow Leopard, but if you're upgrading to Lion, why not retrain your brain? While these metaphorical shifts aren't easy, I'm beginning to appreciate the new swipe and flickable results./technewsworld

Computers News » The Slim Possibility That Microsoft's SUSE Deal Could Be Good for Linux

Microsoft "is trying to be like IBM in having a 'one stop shop' for a corporation's needs, and with deals like this it makes it that much easier for MSFT to sell WinServer," said Slashdot blogger hairyfeet. "SUSE is a really good solid business Linux, and with HyperV MSFT can host plenty of SUSE instances alongside Windows, making it a nice proposition for businesses."

Well July has come and gone for another year here in the Linux blogosphere, and not a moment too soon. It was a Microsoft-filled month, and that trend continued right up until the very end.

Case in point? Hard on the heels of Redmond's little birthday present to Linux a few weeks ago, the Windows behemoth and SUSE announced last week that they are renewing the years-long patent deal originally signed by Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL) but due to expire next year.

Through the new agreement, specifically, the deal is being extended until 2016, and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) will invest another US$100 million in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server certificates for customers receiving Linux support from SUSE.


'A Solid Foundation for Tomorrow'

The "interoperability agreement," as Microsoft called it, is intended to help customers bridge the open source and proprietary worlds, the company said.

"Our collaboration with SUSE not only helps customers to achieve success today, but also seeks to provide them with a solid foundation for tomorrow," said Sandy Gupta, general manager of the Open Solutions Group at Microsoft.

"Through our continued engagement on the technical side, an outstanding support offering from SUSE and our ability to provide mutual IP assurance, we feel confident that we will be able to deliver core value to those running mixed-source IT environments well into the future -- and into the cloud," Gupta added.
'I'm More Than a Little Concerned'

Now, for most of us here in the Linux blogosphere, the very idea of any kind of partnership with Microsoft brings on a severe attack of the willies.


This one was no exception.

"I'm more than a little concerned that Microsoft now has its fingers in LibreOffice, at least by proxy," wrote Anonymous Coward on Slashdot, for example. "From the Membership Committee members who pick who can and who cannot join the Document Foundation, to the small number of engineers who control write access to the master source code repository, LibreOffice is dominated by Novell/SUSE engineers."


'The Dupe Is Red Hat'

The intent of the deal, meanwhile, appears to be at least in part taking business away from Red Hat (NYSE: RHT), Anonymous Coward suggested.

"In other words, Microsoft's patent FUD used to steer Red Hat customers to SUSE," Anonymous Coward explained. "The dupe, of course, is Red Hat, which is a LibreOffice supporter, supporting a SUSE-led project that is propped up by Microsoft in order to steal customers away from Red Hat."

Slashdot blogger Kalriath saw it differently.


'Why Are You Complaining?'

"Um, is it not a good thing that more companies are offering Linux support, no matter how vile you think those companies are?" Kalriath pointed out.

"It lends credibility to Linux as an enterprise and small business solution," Kalriath added. "And let's be honest -- Linux is king of the datacentre, but when it comes to in-house servers, they're still primarily Windows. If Microsoft wants to erode their own market share, why are you complaining?"

Bloggers at ZDNet, at OStatic and more soon weighed in with their own opinions, so Linux Girl knew it was time to learn more.


'More One-Way Technologies'

"Every time they talk about interoperability I think of Mono, where if you design for Linux it's cross-platform but if you design for Windows it only works on Windows," consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack told Linux Girl.

"The same goes for authentication: You can link Linux machines to a Windows domain but not the reverse," Mack added. "We just don't need that sort of 'interoperability,' and this deal is more of the thin edge of the wedge of feeding us more one-way technologies."

Blogger Robert Pogson saw the move as part of Microsoft's long-term survival strategy.


A Strategy for Survival

"M$ is afraid of FLOSS, and will continue to pay off Suse as long as M$ sees divide and conquer as a viable strategy," Pogson explained. "With its recent assault via software patents, that will continue until SCOTUS or US Congress kill software patents."

Software patents will, however, die sooner or later, Pogson asserted, "and M$ will see Suse and GNU/Linux as another attempt at diversification. M$ is already making far more money from segments other than its OS, but it will be a gradual shift to a normal competition on price/performance over the next few years."

As the world shifts toward Android for mobile devices, "M$ will want segments of its business making money on Linux and Linux-embedded devices," he predicted. "It will not be able to rest solely on exacting royalties. Imagine the calamity M$ would face if royalties became the basis of profitability and SCOTUS kicked software patents to the gutter."


'Linux Doesn't Even Have Bottle Rockets'

Not everyone saw it that way, however.

Microsoft "is trying to be like IBM (NYSE: IBM) in having a 'one stop shop' for a corporation's needs, and with deals like this it makes it that much easier for MSFT to sell WinServer," Slashdot blogger hairyfeet told Linux Girl. "SUSE is a really good solid business Linux, and with HyperV MSFT can host plenty of SUSE instances alongside Windows, making it a nice proposition for businesses."

Patents, meanwhile, "are here to stay," hairyfeet opined, "and without a solid source of revenue, FOSS is showing up to a gunfight with a Nerf bat.

"The way you win at patents is Mutually Assured Destruction, and while the other guys have ICBMs, poor Linux with the 'free as in beer' model doesn't even have bottle rockets," he added.
'A Lot Harder to Get Sued'

So, it's "simply good business" for companies to strike licensing deals with Microsoft, hairyfeet concluded.

"It is much cheaper in the long run than a decade-plus-long court case," he explained. "Having access to the MSFT patent portfolio makes SUSE a hell of a lot harder to get sued by the likes of Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) or one of the myriad trolls out there."/technewsworld

Computers News » Commercial Gains Mean Growing Pains for Open Source Community

We are witnessing a new wave of open source use, driven primarily by innovation rather than cost, flexibility, or other advantages. With this new wave, there is a danger that the ease of commercialization ushered in by wider use, greater credibility and, again, innovation means the all-important community piece -- often the free and open source or community version as well -- becomes an afterthought.

Recent conversations at OSCON, which I've attended since 2004, as well as observations through talks with vendors, users and developers in open source all indicate a common theme: With commercial successes for open source software come some community growing pains.

This was also illustrated to some extent by the attendance, content and vibe at this year's OSCON, a good annual check on where commercial open source software stands in its ongoing maturation, evolution and disruption.

There was a much more business-like, commercial feel to OSCON this year, and I heard more than a few times that the technical content was a bit less technical or substantial. There were generally fewer sandals and more suits, basically, which reflects the continuing business, investment and innovative opportunities that accompany open source software in enterprise IT.

However, there is a sense of bittersweet success for commercial open source when free and open source software communities end up feeling neglected, left behind or otherwise let down by their corporate backers who are more focused on commercial success.


The Community Is Critical

The good news is that OSCON was characterized by what seemed like more startups, spinoffs, new projects, integrations and partnerships than ever before. It was also interesting to see some of the old guard of open source software -- now CEOs, executive directors, VPs and CTOs, in many cases -- rubbing elbows with much younger sets of up-and-coming developers.

This highlights another common theme in today's enterprise IT world: Developers are now cutting their teeth at a time when open source is omnipresent in their work, whether paid or leisure, infrastructure or application, mobile software or cloud computing.

So, we are witnessing a new wave of open source use, driven primarily by innovation, rather than cost, flexibility or other advantages we've seen associated with open source software in the past.

With this new wave, there is a danger that the ease of commercialization ushered in by wider use, greater credibility and, again, innovation means the all-important community piece -- often the free and open source or community version as well -- becomes an afterthought.

This is the caution we've reiterated on open core, where the market and customers will decide success or failure. While the benefits of community may be less apparent as code, development, applications and services are tied more closely to dollars and revenue, community remains critical to any open source strategy that will be successful and stay successful over time.


When Silence Isn't Golden

Perhaps nowhere has there been as much focus on this commercal and community balance, which we've covered extensively, as on the OpenStack open source cloud computing project backed primarily by Rackspace (NYSE: RAX) and NASA.

At one year old, the project has managed to grow its membership, contributions, code and capability, commercial spinoff and users, including both the original target of service providers and a more organic community of OpenStack users in the enterprise.

We also see a mix of both open source and non-open source partcipants in OpenStack's nearly 100 member companies, which help make up its 250 contributors. With its focus on cloud computing, participation from various vendors and use among both service providers and enterprises, we believe OpenStack reflects how vendors are being driven by customers' need for interoperability and openness.

Vendors are thus working together with more open source software to provide cloud technology and services. All of this commercial success for OpenStack comes with some community losses; two of the key NASA figures left to launch their own OpenStack-based startups and other community leaders have also moved on.

While some are focused on how this will be competition for OpenStack, either in the market or in the community, it also serves as a sort of open source discipline, just as a fork or leadership struggle can serve to highlight a problem, but also highlight vitality.

What is a far greater sign of demise for an open source project is to hear nothing at all -- the silence of a dead community.


Enemies Unite

So, while the concerns about what happens to community with commercial success for open source software projects, communities and vendors are valid, what is most important is what happens in response to community concerns.

In the case of OpenStack, we have seen some learning by Rackspace along the way. Given membership of not just one large hardware or software or services or cloud management or hypervisor player, but participation from multiple vendors in almost every layer of OpenStack, I believe it is an accurate analogy to say the collaboration going on at OpenStack is similar to what we saw with the Linux kernel, where enemies came together to collaborate and actually proved it was possible for all to benefit.

In that sense, I do believe OpenStack is a glimpse into the future of how customers want and will get their cloud computing technology. However, if the OpenStack community and its open source sub-communities do not continue to get support and do innovative work, then OpenStack will be limited largely to the commercial strategies and prospects that existed for its members before they joined the project.

Computers News » Google's Android Defense: Let's Give Them Something to Talk About

Executives at Google and Microsoft continued to bicker about patent issues Thursday via blog posts and Twitter feeds. Often lawyers prefer to save the arguments for the courtroom. However, the patent crises Google faces could seriously undermine developers', investors' and consumers' confidence in Android. A public show of force at least indicates Google intends to fight.

A war of words continues between executives at tech giants Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) as accusations regarding patent bullying fly between the companies.

The public dispute began Wednesday, when David Drummond, the chief legal officer at Google, posted a company blog missive accusing Microsoft, Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) of excluding Google by banding together to buy "bogus" patents in a direct attack to the Android platform.

In turn, Franks X. Shaw, Microsoft's head of corporate communications, countered by publishing an e-mail exchange between legal teams at Microsoft and Google from several months ago, just before the sale of certain patents by Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL). In the e-mails, Microsoft invites Google to join in a shared effort to buy the patents, and Google refuses.

Drummond didn't back down from his accusations after the e-mail was produced. Instead, he claimed Microsoft was attempting to skirt around the patent issue with a "false gotcha" moment and that the initial correspondence between legal teams had been a trap set by Microsoft.

"Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android -- and having us pay for the privilege -- must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it," replied Drummond in an updated version of the blog post.

Next, Shaw took to Twitter to assert that Google wanted the Novell patents all to itself and that's why it didn't take Microsoft up on its offer to go in on the patent acquisition.

Google did not respond to the E-Commerce Times' requests for further comment.


Tech Giants Elbowing for Patent Protection

This particular tit-for-tat seems somewhat moot now, since the Department of Justice had already intervened and forced Microsoft to sell the patents and give a license to the open source community. But the very public attacks are an indication of how much is at stake in the competitive mobile marketplace and the ever-dirtier patent battles brewing between tech giants.

Legal counsels often advise their clients to stay mum while pending litigation is going on, so there was some surprise within the industry that the head of very high-profile legal team took to the Internet to openly criticize his opponents.

But keeping arguments confined to the courtroom isn't always the wisest choice, especially when the issue at stake is one that's being hotly debated in public -- in this case, patents.

"Now more than ever, millions of people are having the discussion with you or without you. So it makes more sense when you've got billions of dollars at stake to get your point of view heard so developers and investors don't lose confidence," Ron Coleman, partner and head of the intellectual property department at Goetz Fitzpatrick, told the E-Commerce Times.

There are two groups of people that tech companies are speaking to when they take to a public forum, he said.

"These companies are talking to at least two other constituencies whose take on the litigation matters a lot. The first is consumers, who have to decide whether or not they want to buy something that might be illegal in some time," said Coleman.

Companies want to raise consumer confidence levels enough that if a patent matter comes to litigation, consumers won't expect that a product will be scrapped altogether, only that the companies involved will eventually come to a settlement, he said.

The other group companies like Google want to make sure are on board are mobile developers.

"At least as important, if not more so, are the developers and innovators in the tech community," Coleman said. Google doesn't want to see developers fleeing Android, and it wants phone makers to continue to build large numbers of Android handsets without fear.

Another other issue is the incredible amount of money and investments that rely on a healthy patent.

"If you consider the stakes just in terms of the competition amongst Android, iPhone and [Windows Phone], the ability to shut a competitor out of even a tiny fraction of the market because you hold a blocking patent could be worth millions and millions of dollars," Doug Panzer, associate at Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, told the E-Commerce Times.


Only the Beginning

Patent dramas like this one could become a common part of the mobile device landscape in the years to come.

"It may very well be a sign of where patent strategies are headed for the biggest of the tech behemoths. There's an incredible amount of money at stake here," said Panzer.

Those tech behemoths are making the patent game as cutthroat as the rest of their industry, and although some legal strategists like to point out that the patent was originally designed to give the little guy a fighting chance, Coleman says that idea isn't practical.

"I think the idea that patents are meant to protect the humble investor in the garage is a little bit romantic and unrealistic. We want people to humbly invent the paper clip, but we also want people to make massive investments and create really significant technology that have broad applications, like an operating system. With this kind of stuff, compared to something like a pharmaceutical, the discussion is going to be much more public," said Coleman.

In response to these growing issues, companies are buffering their patent portfolios and expanding their legal prowess for the inevitable litigation as consumers and workers in the tech industry watch the bickering and drama unfold.

"For now, we keep watching and wait for the next shoe to drop -- whether it's a blow to one side's ability to compete in a particular market, a drama of patent litigation or invalidation, a legislation push or something completely different," said Panzer.

MedTechNews » Invasion of the Body Hackers? Wireless Medical Devices Susceptible to Attacks

Concerned about the security guarding certain wireless-enabled medical devices, researcher Jerome Radcliffe attempted to hack into the insulin pump he wears on his body to keep his Type 1 diabetes in check. He succeeded. His presentation on the matter at the Black Hat Security Conference has called into question the safety of medical devices and implants that can be controlled via wireless networks.

Security expert and diabetic Jerome Radcliffe has hacked into the wireless insulin pump he wears on his body around the clock to keep his blood sugar level stable.

Radcliffe talked about the hack in a presentation at the Black Hat Security Conference, held in Las Vegas.

He reportedly detailed how untraceable attacks could be launched against wireless insulin pumps, pacemakers and implanted defibrillators from a distance of half a mile.

The use of wireless technology is improving healthcare, according to a post by the GLG Group that cited a study by Philips (NYSE: PHG).

The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) said there are more than 40 million Bluetooth-enabled health and medical devices already in the market.

In June, the Bluetooth SIG finalized standards for Bluetooth-capable thermometers and heart rate management products.

It's possible to hack any wireless medical device that's not configured properly, Tim Gee, principal at Medical Connectivity, told TechNewsWorld.

However, doing so is not a simple task.

"Of course, someone with good generalist programming skills can learn to work with kits like this, but they'd need to know a lot more than a control language," David Harley, senior research fellow at ESET, told TechNewsWorld.

"I'm sure this won't come as a complete surprise to the industry, but it's a largely hypothetical situation that largely belongs in the pages of a thriller," Harley added.

About Jay Radcliffe

Radcliffe, who works at SecureConcern, is a Type 1 diabetic. This is a chronic disease previously known as "juvenile diabetes" that is caused by the pancreas not producing enough insulin to control the patient's blood sugar level.

Radcliffe reportedly spent two years trying to hack his pump because he was concerned about the possibility that someone might be able to hack into pumps like his and reconfigure their settings.

He eventually managed to take control of the pump so that he could change the amount of insulin it injected into his body without leaving a trace of what he'd done.

Radcliffe did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Wireless Technology for Medical Devices

Wireless medical devices use either the MICS band or the ISM band, Medical Connectivity's Gee said.

MICS stands for Medical Implant Communication Service. It uses the 402-405 MHz frequency and is a short-range wireless link used to connect low-power medical devices implanted in patients to monitoring and control equipment.

Such equipment would include pacemakers, defibrillators and neurostimulators.

The ISM, or industrial, scientific and medical band, is reserved for uses other than communications. Such uses include radio frequency process heating, microwave ovens and medical diathermy machines.

Several frequencies ranging from 6.780 MHz to 244-246 GHz are defined as ISM bands by the International Telecommunications Union's Radiocommunication Sector.
The Possible Technology of the Hack

Radcliffe isn't the first to hack a vital piece of medical equipment. Three years ago, a group of academics published a paper about a similar vulnerability in wireless pacemakers.

"It seems to me that the hacking takes place at the transmission link level, in this case, either a WWAN connection, meaning a mobile network, or a WiFi LAN," Harry Wang, director, mobile and health research at Parks Associates, told TechNewsWorld.

It's easier to hack into a network-connected device.

The majority of medical devices aren't connected to networks now, which accords some measure of safety, but that's beginning to change, Wang said.
Death and Device Hacks

However, the chances of a hacker taking over someone's implanted medical device to commit harm or even murder are small.

"The device base is small, and consequences will be much harsher for hackers if they do this," Parks Associates' Wang stated.

"[Radcliffe's hack] will raise the visibility of the issue and may prompt industry and government to act more swiftly," Wang added.

Don't expect a solution soon, because agreeing on one "will involve several parties and the process will be long, particularly if you involve national policy on spectrum allocation," Wang said.

News » Google and Microsoft Take It Outside

A top Google lawyer drew attention to Android's beleaguered patent position recently with a public blog post that took the platform's top attackers to task over what the attorney called "bogus" patents. Public rebukes like this may be relatively rare, but they have their place. Meanwhile, RIM seeded new BlackBerries, McAfee smelled a rat, and AT&T users got ready for a good throttling.

By just about any measure, the Android mobile platform is making a killing in the U.S. As of last March, comScore said over a third of U.S. smartphone subscribers use Android phones. Every major U.S. carrier supports Android phones, every major handset maker in the world not named "RIM," "Apple" or "Nokia" makes Android phones, and the platform's app selection is almost as ridiculously diverse as Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL).

But despite all that success, Android is causing a gut-full of worry for its parent company, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). Over the last several months, some of Google's biggest enemies -- Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), Apple and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL), to name a few -- have targeted Android with claims of patent infringement. Sometimes they go after Google itself, or sometimes they go after handset makers that build Android phones, but the message is largely the same: They claim that some technology used by Android infringes on a patent they own, either because they invented it themselves or because they bought the patent from some other company.

Sometimes the fight happens in court; sometimes it's over with a threat and a settlement. But Google's getting sick of seeing Android picked on, and this week it publicly called out its enemies for what it called "a hostile, organized campaign against Android."

In a company blog post, Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond accused Android's enemies of teaming up to buy patents at Nortel's (NYSE: NT) postmortem estate sale, as well as a few patents that Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL) put on the block, just so Google couldn't get them. He wrote that even though phone makers can use Android for free, Microsoft is trying to make Android phones more expensive to build than Windows phones by pressuring phone makers into paying Redmond licensing fees in order to avoid possible patent trouble. And he accused Google's rivals of competing by filing lawsuits rather than making their own products better.

Microsoft was quick to slap back, though. Company officials responded within hours by posting an email from a few months ago in which a Google executive turns down a Microsoft offer to bid on the Novell patents jointly. So if Google thinks Microsoft's playing a game of billion-dollar keep-away, why didn't it go in for halfsies when it had the chance? It kind of made it look like one of Google's hands didn't know what the right was doing.

But a few hours after that, Google made its reply. Drummond said Google saw the Microsoft offer for what it was: a trick. If Google had shared rights with Microsoft, he said, it might have been able to use the technologies they covered, but it wouldn't have been able to use the patents to protect Android from Microsoft, because Microsoft would have owned the patents too.

To that, Microsoft's head of corporate communications, Frank X. Shaw, countered that really Google just wanted the patents all to itself.

Lawyers often prefer to save the shouting matches for the courtroom -- public bickering like this may be interesting to watch, but it doesn't do much to sway a judge one way or the other. Still, Google may have a good reason for speaking out like this.

Patent law is a tangled mess, and it's an issue that's gaining a growing amount of attention among investors, developers and even consumers. The more the public hears about Android's patent problems, the less confidence they have in the platform, and that could hurt Google just as much as an unfavorable court ruling. By striking back against its opponents in a public forum like this, Google at least gets the message across that it thinks it has a strong case and it's going to put up a fight.