Ubuntu, a widely used and influential GNU/Linux distribution, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers. (Canonical is the company that develops Ubuntu.)...

If we can only say, "free software won't spy on you, unless it's Ubuntu," that's much less powerful than saying, "free software won't spy on you."

It behooves us to give Canonical whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop this. Any excuse Canonical offers is inadequate; even if it used all the money it gets from Amazon to develop free software, that can hardly overcome what free software will lose if it ceases to offer an effective way to avoid abuse of the users.

If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute. If its practice of installing and recommending nonfree software didn't convince you to stop, let this convince you. In your install fests, in your Software Freedom Day events, in your FLISOL events, don't install or recommend Ubuntu. Instead, tell people that Ubuntu is shunned for spying.

While you're at it, you can also tell them that Ubuntu contains nonfree programs and suggests other nonfree programs. (See http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html.) That will counteract the other form of negative influence that Ubuntu exerts in the free software community: legitimizing nonfree software. - Richard Stallman, FSF

"In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. specifically, the Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant. Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also ceasing her use of the disputed domain names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy." - Domain Name Wire

In a series of complaints filed in Delaware, Clouding IP LLC claims the media outlets are infringing on two patents from 2005 and 2007 entitled “technique for enabling remote data access and manipulation from a pervasive device.”

Clouding IP, formed in February of 2012, points to readers’ ability to read the New York Times’ website and mobile apps through a smartphone as evidence of infringement. - Jeff John Roberts, PaidContent

The notice doesn't mention IV, Acacia Research or any other specific non-practicing entity that uses shell companies to house patents. But IP experts immediately gleaned a likely purpose of the PTO's proposed regulation and interest in collecting information about the "real-party-in-interest" for patents. "The concern is companies like Acacia and Intellectual Ventures that spin out hundreds or thousands of subsidiaries so that no one knows who really owns a patent," said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor who specializes in intellectual property law. - Alison Frankel, Reuters

Some technology analysts, along with some of the most influential computer makers in the world, say yes. Optical disc drives take up precious space in our ever-shrinking gadgets, and the ability to stream music or movies on demand has made CDs and DVDs less essential....

CDs? There's music streaming or digital downloads. DVDs? Netflix, Amazon or a host of other online movie sites. Video games? There's digital distribution like Steam and, increasingly, downloads from the major console and game makers. "As personal cloud services become ubiquitous and broadband speeds increase, there's very little reason for many consumers to use an optical drive on their computer going forward," Gartenberg said.

[PJ: I can think of some reasons to want an optical drive. What if you want to keep your own copies that no one else controls? What if you saw what happened to the other users of MegaUpload cloud service, who lost their data when it was taken down? What about making backups of certain personal things, like photos or writings, things that are so irreplaceable that you don't want them only in the cloud? What about privacy issues in the cloud?] - CNN

The lawyer also pointed to the possibility of congressional hearings aimed at probing the FTC itself if the agency reached what Google critics considered a weak conclusion.

[PJ: Wow. Threatening the FTC, if they don't get what they want? Who do they think they are? And it's absolutely not at all true the entire tech industry wants the FTC to take action against Google. What an ugly performance these "critics" of Google (Microsoft allies) are putting on. Get the picture?] - Diane Bartz, Reuters

"Is there anything the court can do? I'm more than willing to issue orders," she continued. "It would be good for consumers, good for the industry, good for the parties."

"We are willing. The ball's in their court," Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven said. - Josh Lowensohn, CNET

It would be a highly obsolete, Internet-hostile law that nobody benefits from – not even the publishers – because apart from Google, none of the smaller startups and aggregators would be able to pay the fee, hence they’d have to close down or move abroad. But the law would create huge uncertainty among everybody who is publishing content on the web and who refers to the publishers’ content, even if its only in 140 characters. It would increase bureaucracy and kill innovation. It’s an evil law which only can be created by people who are incapable of looking forward.

Unfortunately, most German politicians are blindly following the publishers’ lobbyists... - Martin Weigert

The resources we are making available today will give you everything you need to learn about the upcoming meeting and why it matters, craft an effective message to get your government to listen, and engage in the global conversation about how decisions about the future of the Web should be made.

Click here to get started! - Mozilla Blog

The attempt to undermine consumers’ trust in Google by taking a strategic swipe at a competitor’s roots (the “Don’t be evil” slogan dates back to Google’s birth) is likely to trigger a bit of déjà vu for anyone who has followed Penn’s career in politics. - BusinessWeek

December 3, 2012, Decision [PDF], Hon. Gary R. Brown, U.S. Magistrate Judge - Recording Industry vs. The People

Yes. It is, even if the intellectual property back-and-forth sometimes seems pointless and is starting to make Apple look like a bully — or worse, a monopolistic corporate Darth Vader akin to Microsoft in the late 1990s. To combat this, Apple must stick to fighting other major players (picking on someone its own size); being reasonable, and not vindictive, in its demands; and, most importantly, continuing to develop innovative products. That’s key, because, ultimately, these lawsuits are all about innovation.

“A lot of people in the software world think patents are bad. Well, the reality is that in our country, if we don’t have the ability to protect our innovations, the future of America looks pretty grim,” Christopher Marlett, CEO of intellectual property investment bank MDB Capital, said. “The last thing we have is our ability to innovate.”

[PJ: And how stupid was it to send everything else to other places? Why not fix that, and then you won't need to rely on toxic systems.] - Christina Bonnington, Wired

As we have chronicled at length elsewhere, ...the Federal Circuit has struggled mightily over the standard of appellate review since the Markman case. A slim majority adheres to de novo review notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recognition of the “mongrel” character of claim construction. The confusion has contributed to a high, variable, panel-dependent reversal rate of claim construction determinations. Fearing reversal for relying upon expert testimony, district judges avoid and/or mask use of experts in determining how skilled artisans interpret patent claims. Numerous studies indicate -- and district court and several Federal Circuit jurists believe -- that the de novo standard has significantly increased the uncertainty and costs of patent litigation, reduced settlement rates, and misapplied the Supreme Court’s Markman ruling. - Peter S. Menell, Patently O

[PJ: I'm sorry, but that is totally not true. Microsoft built its empire without patents. And its founder, Bill Gates, famously contradicted the Quinn theory by stating clearly that if there had been software patents when he was building his company, there would have been no Microsoft. Why? Because incumbunts use patents as a stick to beat back newcomers, and it's newcomers that bring innovation.] - Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog

Cook: The first thing to realize is that all the things that have made Apple so special are the same as they have always been. That doesn’t mean that Apple is the same. Apple has changed every day since I have been here. But the DNA of the company, the thing that makes our heart beat, is a maniacal focus on making the best products in the world. Not good products, or a lot of products, but the absolute best products in the world.

In creating these great products we focus on enriching people’s lives—a higher cause for the product. These are the macro things that drive the company. They haven’t changed. They’re not changing. I will not witness or permit those changes because that’s what makes the company so special. - BusinessWeek

In the interviews, Mr. Cook suggested the company would work with partners and that the manufacturing would be more than just the final assembly of parts. He noted that parts of the company’s ubiquitous iPhone, including the “engine” and the glass screen, were already made in America. The processor is manufactured by Samsung in Texas, while Corning makes the glass screen in Kentucky. - Victoria Shannon, NYTimes