Politicians campaigning for national office play up their hometown roots and vow to represent their districts or states valiantly on Capitol Hill. They sneer at the term “career politician” and promise to return to their states after their public service. You’ve heard the drill. And, 30 years ago, many politicians did indeed return home after their time in Washington. No more - that routine is a rarity, and this week, lawmakers made it clear that the new post-office fantasy is on K Street.

The House Judiciary Committee has being debating a provision in its pending ethics bill to double the time to two years that former lawmakers could lobby their old colleagues. It was quickly defeated. Why? The Washington Post’s Jeffrey H. Birbaum reported that Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.)  worried that a two-year lobbying ban would weaken Congress’ push “to attract and retain top-flight staff.” Oh, as in, people come to work on the Hill not just to serve their country but also to build up connections and credentials that would one day make them highly billable on K Street. Got it. Well, thanks for clearing that up. 

From my perspective a two-year so-called “cooling off period” seemed reasonable or maybe I’ve seen that PBS documentary on Jack Abramoff too many times.

Bill Moyers, Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, K Street, lobbying, PBS, The Washington Post

It seems reasonable that the presidential debates currently taking place on the major cable networks should be considered part of the public domain and therefore be freely posted and exchanged on the Internet. I would expect the RNC and DNC to negotiate this sharing of speech upfront with Fox, CNN and MSNBC, that the networks may own the rights to the broadcast but they have a public responsibility to share the content with YouTube, Blip.tv, and other sites.

Therefore, I was interested (but not really that surprised) to learn that these networks initially considered the presidential debates copyrighted content and sought to regulate the distribution of the candidates’ political speech. Lawrence Lessig has been leading the charge to get these networks to change their stance, with CNN and MSNBC agreeing to make the content available across Internet platforms. Fox thus far has not agreed.

CNN, copyright law, Court, DNC, Fox, Lawrence Lessig, Media, MSNC, presidential debates, RNC, Uncategorized

Microsoft is waging a legal fight against open-source providers such as Linux, claiming that the popular software violates at least 235 of its patents.  Fortune’s Roger Parloff in a terrific piece published today has the scoop from his interviews with the Microsoft legal team who are on a mission to get free and open-source software (FOSS) users to pay their royalities. 

The event may call to mind memories of IBM’s 2003 lawsuit against Unix vendor The SCO Group.  In the process of that legal event, Microsoft licensed the rights to Unix from The SCO Group. Now the intellectual property drama between ”the free world” and the Redmond, Wash. giant is back on the front page.

Linux and other open-source technologies are perhaps the perfect example of creative destruction, when emerging technologies cause great firms to fail (or perhaps demand royalities and legal cause).      

Court, Creative Destruction, Fortune, FOSS, Linux, Media, Microsoft, open source, The SCO Group, Uncategorized, Unix

Monday, May 14, was the deadline for universities, cable and broadband companies, and satellite internet providers to comply with the expanded interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a little known law (at least in some circles) that has major implications for lots of people and companies because it allows the FBI to wiretap Internet networks.

Congress enacted the law, enforced by the FCC, originally in 1994 to allow the government to monitor phone lines for reasons of public safety and national security. The expansion of CALEA is largely seen under the umbrella of the Patriot Act.

As with many of the federal regulations from FERPA to HIPAA to SARBOX there is an opportunity for emerging companies to help make sure affected organizations and universities are protecting network user privacy, Internet security, and at the same time being compliant with the law.  

Up until a few weeks ago there wasn’t much written on CALEA save the legal site itself and a Wikipedia page, but just in the past few days, mostly because of a Wired blog post, my news alerts have been jumping with the heavy blog chatter concerning the law.  No doubt the debate will continue.

CALEA, Capitol Hill, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Court, FBI, FCC, FERPA, HIPAA, Internet security, Patriot Act, privacy, SARBOX, wiretapping

Rupert Murdoch isn’t giving up his plans to buy The Wall Street Journal despite Bancroft family members today rejecting his $60-a-share bid. Could you imagine what would happen if the News Corp. head purchased this esteemed publication? Rumor has it that Murdoch, a modern day Citizen Kane, would love to feed its content into the new Fox Business Channel, growing the Fox News Empire.

I think Murdoch and his wingman Roger Ailes are partially responsible for the downfall of cable broadcast journalism. Do not take this statement to mean I’m implying anything against conservative or liberal undertones in journalism. I don’t want journalism to be laced with any political suggestions unless it’s a deliberate op-ed.

Murdoch and Ailes turned Fox into a celebrity-obsessed, missing-person chasing, pundit-controlled news channel that deprives viewers of in-depth, studied news on subjects of international affairs, business, politics, etc. This model focuses on just 2-3 stories and makes viewers endure endless hours of speculation, punditry, and worse – news that turns tragedies into infotainment.

Regrettably, the rest of cable news (CNN, MSNBC) and network news followed suit no doubt in pursuit of the ratings Fox garnered. People who wouldn’t think of buying Star Magazine are now consuming tabloid-inspired broadcast journalism. I’m told this is an example of institutional theory – organizations adopt practices and structures that are “rational myths,” things that everyone thinks are rational but which no one is really sure about and could very well be counterproductive.

If Murdoch owned the WSJ, would the esteemed paper turn into this confused dance of myth versus ceremony? Fortunately, most Wall Street analysts predict Murdoch’s bid to end in defeat.

Bancroft family, Citizen Kane, Financial Times, Media, News Corp, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Wall Street Journal

This week on Capitol Hill, it’s all about the Senate. The House is in recess for its spring work period.

To begin, John Kerry is jumping on Al Gore’s global-warming band wagon using his chairmanship of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee. This Kerry-Gore climate love fest isn’t exactly new, but the success of “An Inconvenient Truth” has put them back on the party circuit, with the two dems seen canoodling at recent house parties (thrown by MoveOn) for the successful book/documentary. Despite the apparent alliance, one has to wonder if Kerry isn’t a bit jealous — after all, he just published his own book on environmental change titled “This Moment on Earth.” Gotta wonder if he isn’t sore that Gore beat him to the punch and took the crowning glory for being the king of green. [Here is Kerry’s letter to the Boston Herald today about his climate change efforts.]

In any event, Kerry is now pushing the EPA for details about its  program for small businesses, which he says is only allotted 2 percent (or 2 staff persons) of the entire Energy Star budget. [Here is the letter to the EPA demanding an accounting of the program within 30 days.] 

For hearings on the Hill, here are two I’ll be watching. 

…
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation: Hearing on “VoIP and the Future of the 911 Services,” 2:30 p.m. EST on April 10. [Schedule]    

…U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources: Hearing on “Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act (S. bill 987),” 10:00 a.m. EST on April 12 [Schedule]

Uncategorized

Outside of politics, the law alone bears tremendous challenges for emerging companies entering markets entrenched by industry heavyweights. When young companies introduce new technologies into the marketplace it often results in the displacement of more established technologies, a process that economists refer to as creative destruction.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, established companies often try to keep upstarts from innovating in their marketplace by forcing them into the courtroom, where judges must follow the letter of the law - not weigh how a disruptive technology offered by the upstart could really benefit the consumer.

On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Vonage, a popular Internet calling service, cannot sign new customers unless it stops infringing on Verizon patents. Vonage, which has 2.2 million subscribers, immediately appealed and received a temporary stay to avoid its service from being shutdown. As Vonage’s attorney told the WSJ: “It’s the difference of cutting off oxygen as opposed to the bullet in the head.”   

Vonage is among a number of other telco startups that sought to challenge the traditional copper-wire phone companies such as Verizon by providing consumers the capability of making low-cost calls via the Internet. In my research, I don’t think that Verizon, despite its patent holdings, even offers a comparative service to Vonage.  

Classic example of the law can impede innovation and ultimately consumer choice.  

Court, Creative Destruction, Uncategorized

It isn’t that far fetched to argue that the United States is on the cusp of a global-warming tipping point. In the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and even Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” there has been a visible change among the American electorate, corporate America, and the recent daily hearings taking place at Capitol Hill on the state of the planet. 

It’s interesting to compare some recent poll numbers: In 2005, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that while 59 percent thought global warming was happening, only 38 percent favored immediate government action. In 2006, an ABC News/Time/Stanford poll revealed that 85 percent of respondents thought global warming was underway, with 52 percent supporting government mandates to help curb the problem.  Clearly, the electorate is changing its opinion on global warming, and its emerging as an interesting policy issue.   

In corporate America, three business leaders are making the most noise on global warming: General Electric’s  Jeffrey Immelt, DuPont’s Chad Holliday, and Duke Energy’s Jim Rogers.  As the WSJ’s Alan Murray reported: “The three men were driving forces behind the group of 10 CEOs who called on President Bush last month to cap greenhouse-gas emissions. And their influence reaches far beyond that breakthrough cabal.”

On Capitol Hill and Silicon Valley, here were some interesting things that happened this week:

…Al Gore spoke at the Embedded Systems Conference in San Jose, telling the audience that embedded processors will be a huge factor in overcoming climate problems.

…At the Supreme Court, a narrow 5-4 majority ruled that C02 was a “pollutant” in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency.  The WSJ editorial board had this take: “The ruling means the EPA must regulate automobile CO2 emissions unless that agency can show the science of global warming, or the potential harm it may cause, are too uncertain to justify action. The Bush EPA will no doubt be sued whatever it does. Congress will also dive in with more regulation, if only to clear up the legal uncertainty.”

Capitol Hill, Green

Not everything I write about has a tight political focus.  I like to call out interesting trends and developments with emerging companies, and Facebook is one such company I like to watch.  In the plethora of social-networking sites, Facebook no doubt ranks among the most popular.  But does it have much good beyond college students and alums connecting with old ties?  I didn’t really think so at first, but the tide seems to be turning with Mark Zuckerberg’s Palo Alto-based company.

Facebook members now include Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder (whose fantastic Facebook profile picture I couldn’t resist showing here); Tim O’Reilly, CEO of O’Reilly Media; Jim Breyer of Accel Partners (also a Facebook board member, who has posted some lovely pics of himself with Beyonce on his Facebook page); Ross Mayfield, CEO of Socialtext; Stewart Alsop, VC and former InfoWorld editor; Om Malik of GigaOm - who has only 13 friends on Facebook; and the list goes on.

Does this mean that Facebook is going to cross the generational divide?  Well, at least, so far, it’s spreading like wildfire among the geek thought leaders of Silicon Valley.       

Facebook, Trends

Allowing the unelected, the underrepresented and folks on the fringes of society to participate in the political and legal process has long inspired me, and I’ve pursued various avenues that enabled their involvement, such as heading up a speech-and-debate program for underprivileged youths in my college days and my work in political reporting on Capitol Hill.  However, it was perhaps the greatest suprise to me that I rediscovered this passion not in the inner-city or unearthing campaign finance violations but in Silicon Valley.  I began to realize that individuals are not the only ones striving to find a voice in the political and legal process. Emerging companies share the same struggle. 

Too often emering companies lose market opportunities and potential revenue because they, despite an invention’s potential, fail to realize the importance (or the existence) of the political and legal debates surrounding them.  It is a terrible loss when an emerging company is forced to exit its market – not for lack of technical brilliance or business potential – but because its leaders do not know how to wrestle the legal challenges that threaten their creativity and innovation.

With this new blog, View from the Gallery, I hope to shed light on the political and legal debates taking place each week on Capitol Hill.  Covering these debates with attention to policies that emerging companies, in particular, should note.    

Capitol Hill