Come Join us at Article 3

Find us at www.article-3.com

We have a new home. Article 3. Come find us and join the conversation.

Here’s a little about why we started:

Everyone has an opinion on politics, society and what’s going on.  So do we.  Our goal is to ask the right questions and join in debate without shouting (at least not all the time), recognizing that there are already plenty of places to engage in loud arguments in a polarized world.

Thinking about why things are the way that they are, and how they should be, we’ll often ask questions that take us back to first principles. We think that there genuinely is a social contract at the heart of civilization, and like any contract, our social pact is ultimately based on the rule of law.  So, while we don’t focus on legal issues exclusively, we’ll refer to the law frequently, as a guide.

Article 3 is really a place for sharing the stories we see and hear, and a platform for other voices to participate.  Combining written pieces — short and long — with video and audio shows, we hope there will be something for everyone.

www.article-3.com

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Uncategorized |

Leave a comment

Is The Technology Patent War Spiraling Out of Control?

Patents, originally designed for objects like bikes, lightbulbs and furniture, are ill-adjusted to software innovation

Based on recent events in the tech world, there’s no doubt that patents are increasingly posing complicated problems for some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Oracle and Google are battling it out in court over Android phone patents while Facebook just bought 650 AOL patents  from Microsoft (right after Microsoft bought them from AOL) for $550 million. But the impact of these lawsuits, and the forthcoming patent wars, won’t just affect the tech giants.

The story of patents in the Valley isn’t simply a story about the flow of intellectual property from one company to another (or from AOL to Microsoft to Facebook !) — it’s also a story of how the arms race over strategically packaged patent portfolios is shaping the tech landscape for the future of innovation.

(Check out this crazy graphic illustrating the myriad lawsuits between technology’s biggest companies.)

For consumers ,“to tag” (photos) and  “to refresh” (a feed or page) are part of the everyday lingo, yet behind the scenes, there are full blown battles over ownership of those processes (or ownership of that language) as they exist in code.

The truth is, patent law simply was not designed for the ever-changing, rapidly developing world of software. In fact, software parents are nearly five times more likely to be the subject of litigation as other patents, and since 1999, lawsuits surrounding software patents have more than tripled. Julie Samuels explains this by arguing that the current “patent system fails to recognize how people create and use technology. Software is fundamentally situated as a building-block technology. You write some code, and then I improve upon it — something the open source community has figured out.”

Regardless, owning patents has become pivotal to “legal” innovation, but what happens when big companies like Microsoft and Facebook, or Google and Motorolla, exchange said patents? Other, often smaller, players are locked out from the full ability to further develop or improve a process unless they can “dream up some blocking patents.” So who loses? John C. Dvorak asks: “The small shop with no staff of lawyers”, which is why startups that don’t pay attention to IP will be at competitive disadvantage in the future unless the system changes.

While patent lawsuits have become a price of doing business in America in recent years, and especially in the tech industry, we can argue that software patents aren’t necessary for successful businesses: Facebook and, yes, Google, never relied on software patents to grow their early businesses.

Will  Twitter’s move to give control of patents back to employee inventors finally ring in a ceasefire?

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in IP, Tech |

Leave a comment

What Role Should States Play in Immigration Policy?

For how long will immigration continue to be a national concern dealt with through federal policy?

Since Arizona signed its immigration bill into law two years ago, five states have followed suit, the Obama Administration has lead a forceful challenge, and after bit-part suspensions by lower courts, the question of a state-by-state role in immigration heads to the Supreme Court this Wednesday.

Unlike recent cases (e.g. health care) when the Supreme Court has been asked to assess the constitutionality of federal actions in so far as they apply to states, this case turns the argument on its head in alleging disruptive intrusion by states into the federal policy field of immigration.

Arizona’s “SB 1070”, a law that, among other things, expands the powers of state police officers to stop and hold anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant, inspired a slew of other states (Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah) to pass their own versions.

Almost immediately, the Obama administration challenged the law on the basis that these state laws were encroaching on federal terrain: “Arizona has adopted its own immigration policy, which focuses solely on maximum enforcement and pays no heed to the multifaceted judgments” that immigration law provides for the executive branch to make, the Obama administration wrote in its brief.

Later, four of the more contentious provisions of the law were suspended by federal courts who later temporarily blocked the laws of other states.

Now with the Supreme Court, this case has the potential to be a defining moment for immigration policy, and another defining moment this year ( the other being healthcare) for federal power and the relationship between federal government and the states. For immigration, the question is whether policy will be governed by national interest, or if every state and locality will be free to do as they please, according to local bias.

While it’s hard to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if this right-leaning court chose to uphold some of the law’s more contested sections.

But, even if this were to be the case, the states in question may find themselves with a fight on their hands as unanticipated consequences for farmers and businesses turn traditionally conservative groups against anti-immigration laws.

Already, Alabama was forced to revise legislation, Mississippi’s law died in the Senate after a surge of opposition, and in Georgia, outcry from farmers meant that the state legislature was forced to end its session without any new immigration measures for the first time in six years.

In the light of these events, this debate looks to be moving away from the typical liberal versus conservative and federal power versus state power script we’re all too used to.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Immigration, Law, Policy, Supreme Court |

Leave a comment

Episode 63: When Will We Be Voting Online?

Some members of the military can (sort of) already vote online from abroad -- when will this extend to the rest of the population?

Thanks for waiting so patiently for our next installment. Charley and I are back in the city by the bay after a productive week in London, England.

On this week’s show, we bring you everything you need to know about Internet Voting — the pros, the cons, and how extensively it is already being adopted in the United States (and abroad). To help us out, we speak to Dr. Bill Kelleher, blogger and author of Internet Voting Now!

As always, we start with a quick round-up of some other stories from the past two weeks.

First, we focus on the JOBS act. The bill is an incredible (read: rare) bipartisan effort that makes it easier for start-ups to raise capital. Silicon Valley is happy and the economy should also benefit as a result. For now, we just need to wait and see what the SEC has to say about the bill, and how best it can be implemented to avoid the most unnecessary risks.

Next, we talk about Jill Lapore’s article in the New Yorker re-examining gun control laws, and gun-ownership culture in light of the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting. What did we take away? While there are more and more guns in circulation in the U.S., fewer and fewer people are owning guns. In other words, more guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority. We encourage you all to take a look at the stats.

Finally, there is the exciting news that the Supreme Court is set to re-think the controversial Citizens United decision. For once, it seems that Charley and I are in agreement, predicting that the two-year-old ruling will be overturned.

If Citizens United lowers the voice of the ordinary person, surely Internet voting is a great antidote, democratizing the political process and increasing access to the ballot. For this debate, we talk to Dr Bill Kelleher about the benefits of online ballots, the security dangers (and what we can do about them) and the unexpected news that some 30 states already have semi-online voting in place for military personnel. Tune in to hear the whole debate !

To end the show, we preview next week’s podcast when we’ll be covering the newest tech and IP issues. From Google to Oracle to Twitter. It’ll be one not to miss.

Tell us what you think:

Play
{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Election, Internet, Podcast, Policy, Politics |

Leave a comment

Can Online Voting Become the Norm, Democratizing the Election Process?

The ability to vote online, at any time, from anywhere, should be a question of when, not if.

Millions of personal, business and consumer transactions take place each day on the Internet. From banking and commerce to personal communication, we’re conducting more and more areas of our lives online.

But, a transaction we don’t yet make could become one of the most valuable innovations for our democracy — the assertion of trust, in the form of votes, between us and our government.

Advocates for Internet voting make compelling arguments about the transformative potential online voting can have on the electoral process. In short, from real time updates to flexibility of location, online voting increases the accessibility and ease of the whole process.

One such advocate is political scientist William J. Kelleher, who argues that “Internet voting can be conducted with a degree of security similar to an online purchase, a million dollar bank transfer, or a secret military communication.” Kelleher illustrates that Internet voting is currently being used in other parts of the world without security or technical problems and that rightly organized, it can empower the moderate, middle class voter.

An NPR editorial continues this line of argument asserting that more and more states are allowing overseas and military voters to return their ballots by digital fax or email. Why? They are trying to make voting easier for the millions of Americans who live overseas and are therefore often stripped of their constitutional rights by slow ballot delivery.

In light of this, the ability of everyone to vote online seems like the logical next step. As NY Times writer Matt Bai puts it: “I just renewed my car registration and paid my taxes online, but in November I’ll still have to wait in line to vote.”

But, it seems that the overwhelming reason we still vote in person, at the ballot box, is the uncertainty over whether or not online voting would be secure enough; will it be safe to submit the voted ballot online? Top cybersecurity official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bruce McConnell, argues that security surrounding Internet voting is “immature and under resourced.”

Security experts point to the danger of counterfeit websites, phishing attacks, hacks into the election system, or the insertion of computer viruses that tamper with election results. But it’s not just security experts who are wary of an Internet-based voting system.

While it might seem odd, some of the most committed supporters of paper ballots are in fact the best brains in the world of computer technology. David Wagner, Berkeley Professor of Computer Science, argues that there is “no way to guarantee your vote would be counted correctly, that if someone were to hack the central computer system, then someone could change votes, and there might be no way to detect that kind of election stealing.”

While Kelleher’s book “Internet Voting Now” tackles some criticisms about the feasibility of an online voting system, arguments for Internet voting have yet to address enough of these issues to win over the sceptics.

Countering security concerns and working towards building a commercially viable system are crucial strides towards an Internet voting movement. Americans Elect has made a start, but as we’ve already argued, they are still a long way from hitting the jackpot.

The key to creating something truly transformative is in creating the environment within which it can exist. Naysayers, therefore, should focus less on why it can’t be done, and spend more time thinking about how we can innovate for the sake of the citizens of our 21st century democracy. Yes, Internet voting might be “premature”, according to cybersecurity official Mr. McConnell, but for us at least, the question is not if, but when.

Sona Makker (@sonamakker) contributed to this article.

If you like what you see, follow us @articlethree for more.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Election, Internet, Law, Politics, Tech |

1 Comment

Fewer People Actually Own Guns in America – Who Knew?

George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed Trayvon Martin, is now in custody in Florida. The case brings attention to gun laws and stand your ground policies in several states

Jill Lapore tackles the Trayvon Martin case and the many contradictions of gun culture in the New Yorker.  Does the tragedy in Florida correlate with lax gun laws, “stand your ground” legislation and a changing gun ownership demographic?

The facts:

There are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and six million handguns, a hundred and five million rifles, and eighty-three million shotguns. That works out to about one gun for every American…

The United States is the country with the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. (The second highest is Yemen, where the rate is nevertheless only half that of the U.S.) No civilian population is more powerfully armed. Most Americans do not, however, own guns, because three-quarters of people with guns own two or more…the prevalence of gun ownership has declined steadily in the past few decades. In 1973, there were guns in roughly one in two households in the United States; in 2010, one in three. In 1980, nearly one in three Americans owned a gun; in 2010, that figure had dropped to one in five.

Continue reading

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Constitutional, Culture, Law, Society |

Leave a comment

Supreme Court Will Reconsider Citizens United — Are They Brave Enough to Recant?

Justice Ginsburg has already admitted that she was wrong to vote for unlimited corporate spending in federal elections, will the other justices join her and overturn Citizens United?

Just two years after the controversial Citizens United decision legalizing unlimited corporate spending in federal elections, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a second case about corporate free speech (read: spending!)

This makes for interesting news, both because it is fairly uncommon for the court to consider similar constitutional questions within a few years of each other, and because Montana, the origin of the new case, has a colorful history of electoral corruption.

Continue reading

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Election, Law, Politics, Supreme Court |

Leave a comment

How will the JOBS Act Bring Capital to Small Business and what are the Risks?

President Obama signing the JOBS Act into law on Thursday, April 5th

The JOBS Act of 2012 — signed into law by President Obama yesterday — is an encouraging example of bi-partisan cooperation between Congress and the White House.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (or JOBS Act) sailed through both houses of Congress and is intended chiefly to increase small businesses’ ability to raise capital. So, exactly how will the JOBS Act do this? And what are the risks?

Continue reading

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Business, Charley Moore, Policy, Politics |

Leave a comment

Episode 62: Americans Elect Making Waves? Romney’s Primary Hat-trick and the Supreme Court Case of a Generation

Will you join in?

After a little hiatus (Charley and I were in Chicago last week) we’re back with an update on politics, the supreme court, and a great interview with Ileana Wachtel, the national press secretary for Americans Elect.

Of course though, we all know how much Charley loves baseball and so in honor of this new season, we start with the news that Magic Johnson, in the most expensive transaction for a sports team — ever — has purchased the LA Dodgers from the bankrupt and troubled McCourts.

From one game to another, we recap the happenings in the GOP primary race. Despite a Romney hat-trick in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C., Santorum is hanging on, presumably waiting for a showdown in his home state of Pennsylvania 3 weeks from now.

Continue reading

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Podcast, Politics, Supreme Court |

2 Comments

The Elephant, the Donkey and the New Kid on the Block: Is Americans Elect Making Waves Through the Quagmire?

Said T-shirt from SXSW; the cool design making a very serious argument

The first thing my brother said when I gave him the Americans Elect t-shirt I picked up at SXSW this year? “The elephant vs donkey boxing design is so cool !” Cool? Asks Americans Elect or, as the t-shirt’s recipient also believes, is the age old fight between elephant and donkey now ridiculous?

Americans Elect is a non-partisan, non-profit organization hoping to put their stamp on politics, by stamping out some of the most overblown rhetoric between red states and blue states, elephants and donkeys. Instead of this pantomime, they are urging you ‘Pick a President, Not a party’ in the first direct nomination process.

Continue reading

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Election, Politics |

6 Comments