Vogel Internet, Information Technology and e-Discovery Blog : Texas Internet, Information Technology, eCommerce & E-Discovery Lawyer & Attorney Peter S. Vogel : Gardere Wynne Sewell Law Firm : Dallas TX

After teaching the Law of eCommerce since 2000 I have established my own perspective of 5 Big Bangs which propelled the Internet, three of which were described in a recent blog:

1st Big Bang- Invention of the punch card for the 1890 census by Dr. Herman Holerith (which led to the IBM);

2nd Big Bang- World War II invention of the first modern day computer for monitoring the tides to help with the June 6, 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy;

3rd Big Bang- Launch of the IBM Personal Computer in August 1981;

4th Big Bang- Distribution of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer in July 1995 with Windows 95; and,

5th Big Bang- Web 2.0 with the advent of social networking as predicted by Tim O’Reilly in 2002.

Where is the Internet Going?

It’s very difficult to tell, but when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876, no one could have predicted that I would use my cell phone to make a phone call atop the Great Wall of China in 2005. So where the Internet is going is not easy to predict, but as we observe changes it’s clear that the direction is not entirely what we may expect. In 1998 when Google launched no one could have predicted its success and that would account for more than 63% of all Internet searches, have vast wealth, and that Google would provide an Operating System among many accomplishments.

Web 2.0: FaceBook at its 200 Million User, Doubles Membership in 8 Months!

Big celebrations in August 2008 FaceBook when it registered its 100 million user, now about 8 months later about to register its 200 million user. Web 2.0 (my 5th Big Bang of the Internet) must be for real, but why has FaceBook been so successful? It must be fulfilling a social need. Without question when FaceBook when started in February 2004 it was aimed at college students, but today the fastest growing segment of its membership is the 35 year and older category. As social networking evolves other Internet activities might replace FaceBook, but for the time being the growth is mind-boggling. Please stay tuned for the 6th Big Bang!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Google (Chrome browser) and Mozilla (Firefox browser) joined forces in the EU to complain about Microsoft’s marketing of Internet Explorer (IE) originally brought by Norwegian browser company Opera, and T3 filed an antitrust complaint in the EU against IBM for adversely impacting the mainframe market. Neither Microsoft nor IBM are strangers to antitrust actions in the US and EU, and these complaints are just chapters in very long novels. Both companies have had profound impacts on IT and the Internet, and Microsoft and IBM have an interesting history together which makes these EU complaints all the more interesting.

US v. IBM

From its origins with the 1890 Census Dr. Herman Holerith’s 80 column punch card (what I call the 1st Big Bang of the Internet) led to a company called IBM which had a monopoly on punch cards until its consent decree in the 1930s. Then in January 1969 the US Justice Department brought an antitrust action against IBM for monopolizing the computer market. At the time IBM sold its hardware, software, training, and all services as a bundled product. That is, if someone wanted the mainframe software they also had to purchase hardware, training, and everything else from IBM. So in the July 1969 IBM signed another consent decree to unbundle which led to the development of hundreds of companies for supplying software (like University Computing and Computer Associates), hardware (disk drives, memory, and the like). The antitrust trial was heard by a judge in New York for many years before the claims were dismissed when President Reagan came to office in 1981. Interestingly enough one of the lawyers who represented IBM in the trial was David Boies who represented the US government in the antitrust trial against Microsoft in 1998.

IBM and Microsoft Changed Computing Together

In 1981, the same year that the Antitrust suit was dropped by the US government, IBM launched its Personal Computer (PC) as most folks know (my 3rd Big Bang of the Internet). The IBM PC’s operating systems (OS) was a product call IBM-DOS (Disk OS) from an upstart company in Redmond, Washington called Microsoft (MS). When IBM introduced the PC this was a major departure for IBM in that this was IBM’s first product which used components made by others including the OS. There were a number of other PC’s on the market before 1981, many of which relied on an OS from Digital Research called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers) which was very popular. Apparently IBM could not reach an agreement with Digital Research, but did reach an accord with Microsoft. Although IBM wanted to restrict the use of IBM-DOS like Apple had done with it OS, but ultimately the Microsoft OS version (MS-DOS) was widely used on the clones (Compaq, HP, and many others) with the advent of the Phoenix Technologies BIOS (Basic Input Output System) that permitted all Intel based PCs to use MS-DOS.

Impact of IBM and Microsoft

Both companies have had a dramatic impact on IT and the Internet as is quite obvious, and these claims in the EU may chart the future of each company. Holerith’s 80 column punch and its progeny which started around 1890 last until the advent of the Graphic User Interface (GUI) which was popularized by Apple’s Lisa (from a license with Xerox) and Microsoft’s Windows products. Ironically one of the most significant events for the evolution of the Internet (my 4th Big Bang of the Internet) was in about 1995 when Microsoft started distributing IE which without additional charge. Microsoft’s IE became ubiquitous and the notwithstanding Microsoft’s anticompetitive business practices, the use of the Internet exploded. So we all should watch closely to see how the EU deals with the claims against IBM and Microsoft as the EU’s rulings will likely impact the future of IT and the Internet.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

No surprise at all that the New York Times reported that there has been a rash of mistrials because jurors are searching Google and Wikipedia about the parties, lawyers, and subject matter of the trials. As well, jurors are sending texts, emails, and Tweets (on Twitter) during trials. The traditional rules of trial require that judges admonish jurors to do no independent research about the dispute and to only rely on the evidence presented during trial and argument of the lawyers, and not discuss the case with anyone, even other jurors until deliberations. Actually in days gone by it was relatively impossible to stop jurors from doing their own investigations of going to crime scenes or reading about parties in newspapers, or watching television stories about trials in process. There was virtually no way to police jurors from discussing among themselves the issues in dispute before deliberations. But in today’s Web 2.0 world it’s not possible to restrict jurors at all.

Power of Cells

Without a lot of imagination it is easy to realize that our cell phones allow jurors to text, send emails, post blogs, and send Tweets, not to mention search the Internet while sitting in a jury box or room. So even if courts were to confiscate jurors’ cell phones during trial, surely when the jurors go home at night they can use their cells and the Internet to their hearts’ delight.

Evidence Present in Court

Lawyers spend most of their time in preparing for trial by examining trial witnesses in depositions and reviewing documents to determine what evidence will be presented during trial. The opposing parties do everything possible to restrict bad evidence under the rules of evidence and procedure, and it’s the job of judges to determine what evidence may be shown to jurors. Actually evidence is presented in trial by asking witnesses to identity and authenticate, and then it’s up to the jury to weigh all the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses who vouch for the evidence.

Accuracy of Information on the Internet?

One of the sharp realities of the Internet is that there is no assurance that just because information is found on the Internet that it’s true and accurate. This has been one of the challenges of the Wikipedia in that the articles are posted and updated by individuals who may, or may not want the truth to be portrayed. As a matter of fact many judges will not allow lawyers to cite Wikipedia as legal authority because of skepticism of the authenticity of the content. On the other hand just because Google, Yahoo!, or other search engine happens to push a particular link, pdf, or website to the top of its search list does mean that there is any truth to the content found at that url.

Where are we Headed?

It’s likely that the mystique of a jury trial where jurors only rely on evidence presented in the courtroom will never be the same. Without question the number of mistrials will only grow and cause great difficulty for the judicial system.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This recent headline story about Google’s Operating System (OS) is significant as Google also announced, among other things, that it will also offer a phone service. It is interesting to observe Google’s growth and evolution in the Internet, but also now to see what other creative services it will offer. As pointed out in a recent blog, Google’s purchase of Postini a couple of years ago has propelled Google into the e-Discovery arena.

OS Competition

What a fascinating development that Google will offer an OS to compete with Microsoft and linux. Microsoft’s stumble with Vista and race to deliver System 7 potentially puts Google in the middle of the every user’s desktop/laptop. Apparently Google’s OS Android is being migrated to the Asus eeePC’s and will be marketed by year’s end.

Grand Central Phone Service

Google’s purchase last year of Grand Central was interesting since Grand Central offered its customers consolidated voice mail and text messages. Google phone service system assigns new phone numbers, so if you call a Google Grand Central number all other assigned phones will ring – home, office, and cell. If you don’t answer, a voice mail will be recorded and sent to you by email. In addition to free domestic calls there will be a charge for international calls, and the service will permit 6 way conference calls. Google says there will be no advertising associated with domestic calls.

Where is Google Going?

Good question, world Internet domination or what? It seems pretty clear that Google’s evolution has been characterized by one success after another. Notwithstanding failed projects, Google successful developments have been a poster child for the creative change. But many users do not bother to appreciate that Google is built on advertising and so by using Google’s various services Google users are providing Google more information about themselves. Desktop/laptop users have a great deal of personal and business information on their systems and when Google’s OS is applied is there any wonder that Google will use the data on the computer for some commercial purposes? Consider that Gmail searches email content and provides users advertisements accordingly, so if you send an email to a friend about going to the World Series, along-side the email the recipient will get hotel and travel ads. While users know and appreciate what they are getting, many individuals fail to realize that Google uses the content of Gmails and no doubt with the Google Grand Central product also uses the content of voice mails. Users should review Google’s terms of service and understand what they are getting for free!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A report that Roman Catholic bishops in Italy are urging Italian Catholics to give up texting for lent sends a very interesting message. This suggestion is more than a no-meat Fridays, to stop communicating with texts for 5 weeks. However there’s more at play than it seems. Most Millennials communicate by text rather than phone or email, so one might wonder if this message was directed at trying to get Millennials more involved with their religion.

Political & Social Issue

All cell phone and many other chips rely on Coltan, short for columbite tantalite, and 80% comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo. So the political side of the no texting for lent is to highlight the years of conflict in the Congo where apparently farmers and children have been enslaved to dig for Coltan and the monies have been used against the citizens.  As well many of the wildlife preserves are being destroyed. There is even a “No blood on my cell phone” campaign as part of a requested embargo against the use of Coltan.

Web 2.0 Issue

Without question the Web 2.0 world has changed the way in which we communicate, and hundreds of millions of individuals regularly spend time texting, sending emails, and posting information on FaceBook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and/or Twitter. So giving up texting for lent does not seem like a very pragmatic proposal since such a proposal is not much different than giving up talking to for lent. Actually FaceBook just announced that it was expanding the amount of information about each friend and instead of a 5,000 friend limit, there will be no limit. So clearly Web 2.0 will only expand and giving up any Web 2.0 for lent seems impractical.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link