The new Windows operating system, Vista, apparently will be further restricted than previous versions in that it can only be reinstalled once in an upgraded or successor machine (see Yahoo news here).

The defense is a “kill switch” which comes on when the software is installed and makes the computer unusable except to contact Microsoft through Internet Explorer to establish that it is a valid installation.

Since there are still lots of illegal and legal copies of Windows XP around, Vista may be a hard sell except on new machines with it already installed. And who knows how long it will take hackers to find a way around the switch.

Picking up on the previously reported copyright owners threat of suits against YouTube, the Universal Music Group is now filing lawsuits against similar file-sharing sites Grouper and Bolt, for letting users swap pirated versions of its musicians' videos (see the NY Times here), Universal claims damages of $150,000 for each infraction and costs.

Bolt's chief executive says that it takes down copyrighted material as soon as it is notified. It also seeks a licensing agreement with Universal Music. No word as yet from Grouper.

This suit raises the question of whether it is enough to claim lack of knowledge that an item is copyrighted and if removing it is sufficient response.

Microsoft has begun a complex dance with competing security software suppliers, notably McAfee and Norton, to satisfy them about their ability to continue to sell their products to buyers of its new operating system, Vista. There is another party to the negotiations as well, the EU Commission for European sales and the Korean government for sales there which are trying to make sure the negotiations work out in the public interest and settled law (see yahoo news here and here.)

The news stories suggest that all is largely agreed in the negotiations, but it seems much more likely that this is only the beginning of a back-and-forth in which each side sees how much more it can get. Microsoft is quite clearly responding to user criticism that the security of its products in the past has been insufficient at best, so its attempts to provide better security must be seen as good. One can be reasonably sure that security will be enhanced and consumers will benefit, but whether the negotiations end up with a really great deal for consumers is questionable, at this point.

Speculation that YouTube's adoption of an "anti-piracy" screen will reduce its audience appeal has begun. YouTube, an internet video site just purchased by Google, apparently plans to use a filtering device to determine that posted material is not copyrighted. Similar filters are expected to be applied to other similar posting sites (link here).

The copyright police come to plague the internet. Will all websites be required to check if they include copyrighted material? What happens to fair use of limited extracts from copyrighted material? Can a filter determine what is permitted and what not? Big Brother is watching.

Okay. It's not about ending the invasion of Iraq, but at least they're standing up for strong American values. You see, the president is not doing enough to help business. The United States has a serious trade deficit and the solution is -- well maybe it's not a solution, but it's the Democratic policy -- stronger intellectual property enforcement. Here is what Nancy Pelosi, the radical congressman from San Francisco says in challenging the weak-kneed policies of President Bush:

"The President's failed economic policies have resulted in another month of record trade deficits, once again highlighting the need for a new direction," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "We must pursue an aggressive trade enforcement agenda so that U.S. businesses and workers do not pay the price for countries that refuse to play by the rules." link to the "Intellectual Property Abuses" press release here

In another example of how complex patent law has become, chip maker Qualcomm has been found to have infringed a Broadcom patent but declined to ban the sale of phones with the chips NY Times link here

The finding was made by an International Trade Commission administrative judge and is subject to review by the full commission and then by the courts. The commission, a quasi-independent federal agency with power over imports, is not likely to make a final decision until February.

The finding is adverse to Qualcomm on some claims of one Broadcom patent for wireless chips, but not on two other patents at issue in the case.

This case again raises doubts in my mind about the patent system. The legal findings seem like hair splitting when “some claims” [but not all?] about one patent are found to infringe but not on claims arising from two other patents. Given that a final determination may be years away, any phone maker will shy away from taking a risk on these Qualcomm chips which are thus faced with being shut out of the US market. One must wonder about how technically qualified the judges are and the money spent on the litigation, as well as the loss to consumers.

An earlier post observes that fashion design - and industry with thriving innovation and no IP - is eager to put new designs under lock and key. Needless to say, the culinary industry is not far behind. Pete Wells article in food and wine (hattip: Jesse Walker) describes Homaru Cantu's great new innovation: patenting recipes.

For all his originality, Cantu is not the only one who thinks that the ideas born in a restaurant should belong to the chef. There are at least two ways to claim legal protection for intellectual property. One is Cantu's route, through patents, but another, copyrighting a dish, could have much more far-reaching effects on the culinary world. Chefs have traditionally worked on an open-source model, freely borrowing and expanding on each other's ideas and, yes, sometimes even stealing them outright. But some influential people are now talking about changing the copyright law so that chefs own their recipes the same way composers own their songs. Under this plan, anyone who wanted to borrow someone else's recipe would have to pay a licensing fee.

Am I alone in doubting that this will increase culinary innovation?

Microsoft has announced new controls to reduce piracy with its new operating system, Vista, due out early next year (link here or here).

The plan is to make some features inaccessible unless the copy is proved not to be pirated.

I speculate that pirated software has become a significant drain on Microsoft earnings. It was willing to pay that cost as long as its sales were growing rapidly and in order to establish itself as the dominant operating system around the world. But having done so in big markets like China and India where the market size is no longer growing so fast, and facing increasing competition from free operating systems like Linux, its profit maximizing strategy has changed.

Security software vendor Symantec Corp. has accused Microsoft of abusing its monopoly in deciding which security products can run on its upcoming operating system, Vista. It said Microsoft Corp., which started selling its own security products in May, is deliberately withholding information needed to develop products that work on its new and almost certainly dominant operating system (link here).

While Symantec hasn't filed a formal complaint, it said it is going public to pressure Microsoft to release software development kits that would allow rival products to work with Vista, like a "dashboard designed to show what protection programs are switched on."

European antitrust regulators previously warned Microsoft not to shut out rivals in the security software market as it builds more security into Vista. Symantec said it had faced similar problems with the Windows XP Firewall but Microsoft finally backed down. It believes Microsoft has stopped co-operating with vendors after it entered the security market with its anti-virus and firewall product OneCare.

In a case similar to that of Limewire reported below, Streamcast, a distributor of software to share files, was found by a court to be guilty of “encouraging computer users to share music, movies and other copyright works without permission (link here).

The case, brought by members of the Hollywood movie studios, record companies and music publishers, had been to the Supreme Court and was sent back to the lower court for further review. The judge's “summary judgement” seems pretty conclusive, unless Streamcast follows the model suggested by Limewire to try to work out a deal by which it can permit file sharing only if the file does not involve copyrighted material.