Web 2.0 in Government: WikiGovernment

The trendy line of books with a "Wiki" prefix has continued with Beth Simone Noveck explorations of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance collaborative democracy in WikiGovernment.

Noveck asserts that the culture and technologies underlying movements of self-selected experts working collaboratively (and usually voluntarily) on projects, in the model of Wikipedia or the open source community before it, should be applied to government decision-making. She uses the US PTO's peer-to-patent program as her preeminent example of this model of public-private collaboration, not surprisingly as she was instrumental in its formation.

As I described here , the peer-to-patent program involves self-selected experts finding and commenting on prior art that may be relevant to a particular patent application. The experts's findings are presented to the examiner, who ultimately makes the decision on the patentability of each proffered claim. Noveck reports that the examiners viewed the peer-to-peer results favorably, believing the experts to have found art that they would not have located.

The iterative processes of commenting and rankings are similar to open souce projects such as Wikipedia, and the numerous private entities that use such practices to harness the “collective wisdom” of the masses. However, the ultimate decision is still in the hands of the government. So Noveck's criticism of earlier public participation models usch as the public commenting on rule-making – that they involve public comments but not actual decisions, is misplaced. If peer-to-patent is the model, the lesson is that the public (and by public we mean self-selected epxerts) should be involved earlier in a way that could (but not necessarily will) influence public decision making, rather then comments on rules made after the fact when there will be little chance for meaningful change.

These ideas are obviously still worth investigating. A bigger role of the public in the beginning of government decision making processes will make it harder for agencies to ignore public participation. It is counterproductive to criticize attempts to use technologies to improve government services, particularly in this age of routine bashing of government.

The obvious problem in crowdsourcing is maintaining public participation. The patent system relates to technologies that affect our economy and society at all levels, yet Peer-to-Peer had a difficult time finding the right experts. Private crowdsourcing projects, such as Innocentive , use bounties and other cash incentives to spur incentives. If government agencies cannot similarly incentivize participation, there will be a great danger that the process will be captured by particular companies and individuals pursuing parochial, rather than public, interests.

Motorola Droid and LucasFilm

While watching one of the ubiquitous commercials for the Motorola Droid, I noticed this blurb flashing briefly in the fine print (and also on the printed advertisements, allowing me to reprint it here):

"DROID is a trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. and its related companies. Used under license."

Apparently, on October 9, 2009, LucasFilm applied for the mark . It covers " Wireless communications devices, including, mobile phones, cell phones, hand held devices and personal digital assistants, accessories and parts therefor, and related computer software and wireless telecommunications programs; mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, electronic mail, and other digital data, for use as a digital format audio player, and for use as a handheld computer, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, and digital camera; downloadable ring tones and screen savers; cameras, pagers and calling cards".

Government Antitrust Litigation Against Intel

Perhaps signaling an increase in antitrust activity by government authorities, several actions have been filed against semiconductor giant Intel.

Last November, NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo started the volley by instigating an antitrust lawsuit against Intel, the first against the company in a decade, according to the NY Times . The Obama administration followed suit . The actions allege that Intel pressured computer manufacturers to avoid competitors such as AMD, and also rigged its micropocessor to prevent Nvidia from providing chips to customers desiring superior graphics capabilities.

According to PC News, antitrust action has drawn "mixed reviews" because microprocessor prices have fallen sharply in recent years .

Interesting article on how difficult it is for start-ups to crack the x86 market of microprocessors here.

DOJ investigating IBM for Antitrust Violation in Mainframe Licensing

The DOJ announced it was investigating allegations that IBM is engaging in anticompetitive conduct by declining to license certain components of its mainframe technology, such as software, to potential competitors. For example, IBM allegedly did not license its software to Platform Solutions, one of several companies working on software to enable smaller servers to mimic the capabilities of mainframes. IBM, of course, denies that its licensing practices are anticompetitive or violate antitrust laws, and the mere refusal to license is usually insufficient to prove wrongdoing.

It is an interesting reminder of how important mainframe technology is, even decades after the PC revolution. According to the NYT, mainframes still comprise 25% of IBM's revenue, and handle 50 billion transactions a day. Indeed, some have noted that the modern "cloud computing" phenomenon is an attempt to recreate the interactivity and functionality of mainframes from the 1960's, when companies remotely used the storage and bandwidth provided remotely by large machines.

Collusion allegations against Apple, Palm (Jaideep Venkatesan)

The stepped up regulatorenforcement of the new regime seems to have settled on a new target - allegations of collusion between Palm and Apple to not poach each other's employees. The allegations are not sourced, and neither company is commenting (nor its seems, is the DOJ), so it is hard to determine the accuracy of the allegations.

Feds May Be Investigating Apple's Request For Palm To Stop Hiring Apple Employees

Microsoft and Google: A Recap (Jaideep Venkatesan)

So much has happened between Microsoft and Google, a recap seems to be in order.

Microsoft launches Bing , replacing its moribund Live Search.

Google announces the development of the Google Chrome Operating System.

Microsoft announces that it will offer a a free online web version of its Office applications, which will compete with Google Docs for hosted software applications.

Note the antitrust issues raised in the Google OS release. The FTC is currently investigating Apple and Google under little-used section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
Michael Arrington's interviewed Gary Reback , author of the excellent book Free the Market! about his experience in antitrust issues in the technology industry over the past thirty yeares. Arrington and Reback discussed some of these issues. Reback argued that even though the DOJ's civil actions against Microsoft did not result in a concrete remedy, they achieved their purpose by spurring competition among browsers. A large share of the credit for this competition is due Mozilla and its Firefox browser. The New York Times examines the impact of Google's entry in the browser and operating system spaces on the future of Mozilla.

There is also a good analysis of the Microsoft-Google battle in CNN - Google vs. Microsoft: What you need to know.

The upshot of most te analysis is that Microsoft and Google are battling for position on the "webtop", when businesses and consumers move away from locally owned storage and memory to computing on the cloud. While it is not clear how it will shake out for either company, consumers are likely to benefit from increased competition in browsers, operating systems, and web applications.

Financial Reform and Venture Capital (Jaideep Venkatesan)

Last month, President Obama unveiled his plan for financial regulation. The administration's
draft included a provision to bring "private pools of capital" under regulation, potentially subjecting venture capital funds to disclosure requirements, margin and reserve limitations, and other regulations that govern traditional banks and bank alternatives.

Financial reform bringing "shadow banking" under regulation is essential to prevent a replay of the financial crisis of 2008 that froze credit and ushered in the current recession/depression. However, it is an open question as to whether venture capital funds function in a manner similar to banks and pose the same systemic risks if left unregulated.

The National Venture Capital Association wasted no time in opposing the financial regulatory plan. The Association made the boilerplate opposition to financial regulation typical of the Washington Consensus. Given the current plunge in Venture capital funding, poorly designed regulation can exacerbate the economic downturn. Nonetheless, the current crisis requires a financial overhaul, and given the importance of venture capital funding to technological innovation and the economy, it should not be left out of the new financial regulatory regime.