Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Canada to Embrace Permission Culture? | Main | Cable Theft or Cable Sharing? »

June 1, 2004

It Is All About Locking Down the System

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Three Items:

Item 1) Below, Donna notes that a recent consultancy report rings the alarm bells about the use of open software platforms on cell phones (Dumb Mobs). If people have the opportunity to run the free services they want on their cellphones, they may be able to avoid paying for similar services. For example, dialing 411 costs money, doing a number lookup via one of dozens of websites is free. The point is, service providers have to lock down the hardware with DRM to make money on the service.

Item 2) Reuters reports that Sun's President and Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Schwartz predicts that hardware will be free in return for paying for a software subscription (Sun Rolls Out New Hardware, Software, Services). Slashdot readers respond (Sun Says Hardware Will Be Free). Actually, this is sort of how the cellphone market works today. Buy a service subscription and you get a free phone, but see item 1 above.

Indeed, the cellphone market model is already struggling and will only struggle more in the forseeable future. If this is the model Sun is adopting ... I'd sell Sun at this point.

Read on...

The problem with the cellphone market is that it is desparately trying to evolve new functionality. Without neat new functionality I have to get, I'm not going to want to upgrade the hardware.

I buy the 1-year contract in exchange for the phone. If at the end of the year, I'm still happy with the hardware, I'm going to be able to push hard for a good deal on the service - especially with number portability. If the service providers can't tempt me with a new phone, I have significant bargaining power. If the phone is an open system my power is even greater.

One has to wonder how well this free hardware/subscription services model will work with the PC. Why would anyone want to subscribe for browser or word processing software? How much value will software upgrades through subscription provide for software that is pretty darn mature as is? The console market struggles with subsidies for things like XBox, but free is far more than a subsidy.

Item 3) Rumours are rampant in the Apple community that the next big thing from Apple will be a projector (Apple Projector - New Hardware for Apple Movie Store?). Now, I don't think the projector idea makes a whole lot of sense, but this line from the article caught my eye:

If the iPod was the trojan horse that allowed Apple to secure its place as the leader in DRM'd audio file formats, a movie projector that doubled as a computer could just as easily do the same for the company's computer install-base.

An almost throw away point, but an important one. Through DRM, Apple is attempting to garner control of the music distribution market. It isn't about protecting against piracy. It is only marginally about selling iPods. It is about controlling distribution.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

1. Brad Hutchings on June 1, 2004 4:59 PM writes...

So Ernest, you have identified three market opportunies where customers should be crying for open systems and suppliers would be catastrophically stupid not to work with you. To paraphrase Steve Jobs talking to John Scully... Do you want to blog all your life or do want to do something that makes a difference?

Permalink to Comment

2. Ernest Miller on June 1, 2004 5:04 PM writes...

You want to write snarky comments on someone else's blog, or will you do something that makes a difference?

You have funding? I've got a number of great ideas that could use it.

Permalink to Comment

3. Brad Hutchings on June 1, 2004 5:21 PM writes...

Your examples are totally off base. Take Sun. They basically sell servers, high-end workstations, and thin clients. The high end server market always wants to reduce costs and increase reliability, the emerging low-end server market that would buy Sun instead of a Linux box would like low cost appliance-like behavior. A fairly closed system where Sun takes care of everything might make a lot of sense to these customers. In your post, you link Sun's strategy musings to renting of word processing software, which is a total misunderstanding of what people do with Sun's products. Sun even GIVES AWAY office software, for crying out loud! My comment may have been snarky, but seriously, closed systems actually offer tremendous value to some customers.

If you think that market segment is negligible and that a completely open system would be a better success, this is America... Put a business plan together. Some open systems have been very successful (the Internet) and possible to monetize. Some have enjoyed niche success (Linux) but not easy to make money with. Maybe you can come up with one for music where it would make economic sense for artists to play instead of DRM'd systems like Apple's. But I'm skeptical.

Permalink to Comment

4. Ernest Miller on June 2, 2004 12:02 PM writes...

The only place we've really seen the hardware is free market work is the consumer space, and that is sputtering along. I really doubt it will be terribly successful in the corporate space. What benefits would most corporations get out of such a deal? After all the old IBM model was rent the big iron ... very few accept that deal anymore.

I've put business plans together - several. I even led the team that won 2nd place in a state-wide business plan competition for graduate students (beating out a dozens of MBA students). However, getting funding isn't easy.

In any case your argument boils down to "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Unfortunately, while capitalism works best in the aggregate it doesn't mean that it works perfectly in every situation.

Permalink to Comment

5. Seth Finkelstein on June 3, 2004 4:42 AM writes...

Why all the reaction over what seems to me a fairly pedestrian comment by Sun that the future will likely have more of "Give away the razor, make money on the blades".

As sophisticated hardware becomes cheaper, using it as base for services as a profit center is more workable. Yawn (over the general idea).

Of course, that means the vendor has to try to make sure someone doesn't provide compatible interoperable service - hence the Lexmark v. SCC case and similar ilk. That's a danger.

So I suppose the reply to "Why not innovate?" is that "It's likely to be against the law."

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Apple I Reaches CAFC
Macmillan Pretends It Can Plug Analog Hole
Pomplamoose is Still Making It
Why Make the Secondary Market?
Lexi Alexander vs the Copyright Cartel
Digital Homicide Studio v Fair Use
The Art of Asking for "The Art of Asking"
Two Copyright-in-Gaming