2006

You are currently browsing the yearly archive for 2006.

2007: RSS will explode

I offer just this one prediction for 2007, as I believe it will eclipse all others.

With Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 7 released and other big internet companies upgrading key information management products, 2007 will see RSS reading reach a mass audience and the potential for RSS to transform the information management industry will be realised.

There is already no shortage of useful RSS feeds for lawyers, and if the smallest of local councils can produce several, so can everyone else that matters. Spurred by the increased demand, they will.

But once again, lawyers will be some of the last to cotton on. As Richard Susskind said recently in his Times column:

Most lawyers are pathologically late adopters of IT. Despite promising, early successes, until the worth of an emerging technology is proven beyond reasonable doubt it will not generally be embraced by the legal world. A case in point is RSS [which] enables law firms to alert their clients when they publish something new online, and allows practitioners themselves to be similarly notified when websites relevant for them are updated. While this appears to be ideal for lawyers, many have not heard of RSS. … within 18 months, any lawyer not using RSS will be badly out of step.

New law bloggers

Spotted by Geeklawyer:

Lawyers against Software Patents is self-explanatory.

Pupilblog is an engaging diary of life as a pupil barrister: ‘It really does all feel very Dickensian.’

and by Nearly Legal:

LI (legal information) Issues

and thence to:

Banking Lawyers Network.

Pods law

Ibrahim Hasan, solicitor, is producing a monthly series of FoI podcasts designed to bring busy public sector practitioners up to date with the latest developments in FoI law. Ibrahim discusses, inter alia, recent decisions from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Information Tribunal and their impact on FoI practice.

Meanwhile OUT-LAW Radio pumps out 10-minute podcasts every Thursday on IT and e-commerce topics.

The Statute Law Database was finally released to the public today. See what you think. Background and issues are covered in my recent article.

Is the SLD “open”? No:

The content is available free of charge to be viewed on screen, copied, printed out for private study and research purposes or for internal circulation within an organisation. To enquire about any other re-use of the data, including in commercial information products and services, please apply for a Click-Use Licence.

This is misleading as the SLD in fact falls outside the scope of the Click-Use Licence, being a “value added” service, so you need to apply for a Value Added Licence.

What are the terms for commercial re-use likely to be? The DCA is still hatching a plan. Indeed, I am being consulted on the issue and will report back in due course. If any aspirant re-users have a view, please comment here or contact me.

Further to my earlier post consigning e-newsletters to the watebasket, Kevin O’Keefe explains clearly why there’s little, if any, viral marketing effect from law firm newsletters.

From The future of intellectual property: Andrew Gowers interviewed on openDemocracy.net:

The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has been broadly welcomed by copyright campaigners. Lawrence Lessig, the godfather of Creative Commons, has labelled research conducted into the economics of copyright extension “fantastic”, urging all governments to “muster the courage to follow this advice”; the Open Rights Group has said they are “delighted” by his evidence-based approach. In total, the report makes over fifty recommendations, some which can be implemented by the government immediately, and others that speak to reform in the European Union and even the World Trade Organisation.

“It’s not radical in the sense that it does not throw into question the fundaments of the IP system”, explains Gowers. “But it is kind of radical in the sense that it doesn’t take anything for granted. My view is that for far too long intellectual property has been a priesthood on the one hand and a lobbyists’ playground on the other. A priesthood in the sense that it is enacted by these quite funny men of a certain age in legal chambers, dusty files all around them and so forth. And a lobbyists’ playground in the sense that the people who are IP holders, the people who say more IP protection is good are well-organised and well-focussed, articulate and well-financed. And the people who actually pay for it, in terms of consumers, are diffuse. So up until now it’s been a one way argument.”

OUT-LAW.com finds the Review:

predictable in its recommendations. The Review was a rare opportunity to look at whether our IP laws currently strike the right balance between fostering creativity for the general good and giving businesses opportunities to make money, but on the whole it only recommends tweaks to our current approach to fill obvious gaps, facilitate enforcement and remove inconsistencies. Although welcome, these proposals are limited.

As to copyright in sound recordings, Gowers recommends maintaining the status quo – it’s still OK that this Sir Cliff recording (“frankly I am appalled to find that there are no plans at present to extend the term of copyright applicable to sound recordings in Europe”) should soon be freed from its shackles.

OFT Press Release 07/12/2006:

The OFT’s market study into the commercial use of public information has found that more competition in public sector information could benefit the UK economy by around 1billion a year.

Examples of public sector information include weather observations collected by the Met Office, records held by The National Archives used by the public to trace their family history, and mapping data collated by Ordnance Survey. The underlying raw information is vital for businesses wanting to make value-added products and services such as in-car satellite navigation systems.

Public sector information holders (PSIHs) are usually the only source for much of this raw data, and although some make this available to businesses for free, others charge. A number of PSIHs also compete with businesses in turning the raw information into value-added products and services. This means PSIHs may have reason to restrict access to information provided solely by themselves.

The study found that raw information is not as easily available as it should be, licensing arrangements are restrictive, prices are not always linked to costs and PSIHs may be charging higher prices to competing businesses and giving them less attractive terms than their own value-added operations.

The report has also found that much of the legislation and guidance which aims to ensure access to information is provided on an equal basis, lacks clarity and is inadequately monitored. As a result the full benefits of public sector information are not being realised.

The OFT concludes that PSIHs should:

  • make as much public sector information available as possible for commercial use/re-use
  • ensure that businesses have access to public sector information at the earliest point that it is useful to them
  • provide access to information where the PSIH is the only supplier on an equal basis to all businesses and the PSIH itself
  • use proportionate cost-related pricing and to account separately for their monopoly activities and their value-added activities so that PSIH’s can demonstrate that they are providing and pricing information fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner, and
  • enable the regulator (Office of Public Sector Information) to monitor PSIHs better, with improved enforcement and complaints procedures.

Implementing these recommendations could double the value of public sector information to the UK economy to 1billion a year, and benefit consumers by providing a wider range of competitively priced goods and services.

The OFT found good examples of PSIHs working well with businesses, such as the British Geological Survey making core samples and field notebooks accessible to businesses producing their own mapping products. Also, the Met Office ensures that it charges the same price for weather observations to competing businesses as to its own weather forecasting operations. However these cases were not found to be typical.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

“This is ground-breaking work for the OFT, looking at hidden markets in the economy. These monopoly public sector bodies cost the UK economy 500 million in lost opportunities. Our recommendations will help to make this valuable public asset more easily available for commercial uses which will benefit the economy and consumers.”

NOTES

1. The OFT is using the term ‘raw’ information to mean unrefined information for which the PSIH is likely to be the sole supplier. PSIHs are usually the only source of the basic information they hold. There are good reasons why this is the case, such as: high fixed collection costs, government funding for collection and privileged access, perhaps through statutory collection powers. We refer to this basic information, which cannot be substituted directly from other sources as unrefined information. Once a PSIH does something with the unrefined information which could also be performed by another organisation, such as a private business, if it were given access to that unrefined information, it becomes refined information.

2. The following are the eight largest PSIHs by income from the supply of information:

  • Ordnance Survey – 100m
  • The Met Office – 90m
  • UK Hydrographic Office – 57.2m
  • Land Registry – 29.4m (most of this income derives from the supply of PSI chiefly for conveyancing services where prices are set by statute)
  • Companies House – 14.2m
  • Coal Authority – 9.3m
  • Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland – 7.4m
  • Registers of Scotland – 6.2m

The next 10 largest PSIHs who responded to our survey reported a combined income of approximately 20m.

Gambling Law Blog and Sports Law Blog are two new blogs from Cecile Park Publishing, publishers of the e-commercelawdirect range of newsletters. This is indicative of one direction blogging will take as it enters the consciousness of the commercial publishers. These blogs obviously have good credentials and are likely to be good ports of call. I would like to see posts attributed to real people rather than just to “E-comlaw”; blogs prosper according to blogger personalities as much as their content.

Not another law blog

RadcliffesLeBrasseur Mental Health Blog

New law bloggers

Two new law blogs:

WigleyLaw is from Wigley & Co, a specialist technology, telecommunications, procurement, and sales/marketing law firm.

Head of Legal is from a barrister specialising in European, human rights and public law.

Not new, but overdue for a mention is Terminological Inexactitudes, an occasional rant about working in and using the English legal system.

« Older entries