Bankruptcy might be an option for Vonage after being hit with the loss of a patent infringement lawsuit from Verizon.

Vonage was sued by Verizon for 5 accounts of patent infringment. The court ruled last month that Vonage violated only 3 of the infringements and Vonage has to pay 58 million dollars to Verizon for the offenses.. Futhermore, Vonage was barred from added new customers. However, Vonage’s appeal in Federal court was able to get it a temporary stay order until April 24.

There are talks about Vonage looking for a permanent solution to avoid infringing Verizon patents. However, Vonage has still not been able to come up with a work-around.

This brings about our current discussion of copyright and how it can be applied to technology. As the court case above shows that offenses of “copying” technology can be proved in the court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

Intriguing blog post with an excellent link to a YouTube video.  Blogs, YouTube,  and Wikipedia are all contributing to sharing, collaborating and  linking us.  The growth of social networking is linking people all around the world with similar interests, backgrounds, hobbies, occupations, ages, etc…  The larger impact of social networking is that we are becoming connected to one another in one way or another on the Web. One can even argue that the entire World Wide Web is a social network. However, specifically social networking sites are directly expanding the idea of sharing content and expanding links .

The author of the blog post linked above,  touches upon an interesting point, that we are being watched carefully and connected through our observed preferences.  Surely, we are making networks of our preferences.  Knowing our preferences means  big money for competing companies. Hence, the on-going competition between websites can be seen with a number of websites such as Friendster, Facebook, MySpace, etc…  It is apparent that members of social networks are not the only ones benefiting from them, but surely the owners of the websites have their own motives. Finding out our preferences and what we’d like to spend money on,  allows the owners of the websites to make “spending” options available on their site with little effort from their end.

Yu Ling is suing internet giant Yahoo for betraying her husband. Yu Ling’s husband, Wang Xiaoning, wrote about politics, anonymously emailing his e-journals to a group of Yahoo users. Wang is now serving a 10-year sentence for his pro-democratic writings. Yu is suing Yahoo for leaking information about Wang to the Chinese authorities. Legal experts are doubtful of Yu’s chances in court. However, Yu is willing to make a case of humans rights violation. She is also hoping her case would help release her husband from prison. The court’s verdicts clearly shows that Yahoo played a role in the case. A Yahoo spokesman, Jim Cullinan, stated that, “We are required to follow the laws of those countries and that’s what we’ve done.” Other technology firms such as Google and Mircosoft also comply with the government requirements of the country they’re operating in.

Although, the internet has made the practice of freedom of speech easier, people like Wang, who live under repressive regimes still end up paying the price for being vocal. Wang’s views were against the nature of the Chinese government, hence he ended up in prison for his pro-democratic views. The position of Yahoo in this case is quite difficult, because they are required to follow the laws of the country in which they are operating in. They don’t have a say in the laws of another country and they surely cannot interfere, but the controversy comes forward with Yahoo giving information about Wang to the Chinese authorities. Should Yahoo make user information confidential? This may hinder Yahoo’s operations in repressive regimes. It probably won’t be beneficial for Yahoo in the long run to stay out of these countries. The internet giant, Yahoo, wants its services to be used internationally.

 Interesting as it can get. With all the controversy going on with children accessing the internet unmonitored and parents worried about their children’s safety regarding their online activity, should Snoopstick be a solution for parents to “spy” on their kids?

The pros of this would be that parents would be at ease that their child is being monitored at their home computer. They would be able to take preventive measures if their child is up to some trouble. Parents would also be able to limit their child’s accces to adult websites and other questionable websites. However, is it ethical to monitor  your child’s every IM conversation and email? Aren’t children allowed at least some amount of privacy?

Laura posted an excellent, new techonology, which brings about questions of morality and ethics. Where exactly should parents draw the line to monitor their children’s online activity? How should they make sure their children are not putting themselves into harmful situations with strangers without invading their privacy?

Another point to note is the factor of trust. Once children find out their parents are monitoring their activity wouldn’t they lose trust in their parents? Perhaps, if they really wanted to still visit certain sites and have certain conversations , they may still do so on a friend’s computer or perhaps a computer at their school. So, it may not be possible to monitor children at all times and a SnoopStick may even cause them to rebel once they find out their every activity is being monitored. If parents decide to monitor the behavior without telling the child, the child would find out sooner or later when the parent tries to intervene with  the child’s online activity or questions him/her about a certain activity.

Another interesting point from Laura’s post is that the SnoopStick can prevent children from accessing social networking sites such as myspace. I wonder how many skeptical parents would be interested in getting one to monitor their children’s online activities.

Beat the press on Political blogging: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBZHo6J7G8s

In this video university education is mocked. The comedian expresses that post-graduates tend to forget what they “memorized” in university classes within five years after graduating. I think he makes very valid points. Although, I would not go to the extent to say that all the classes that we are required to take during our university years are of that nature, I still think a fair amount of the content we learn during university is dismissed and perhaps never applied by us later on in life.  He gives the example of language and how we are told to memorize certain vocabulary words and obviously without practical experience of applying them we will forget most of what we have learned.  I think education has to go hand in hand with practical application and experience or else we will forget what we learn. However, there are certain skills we build during our univeristy years that help us throughout our life. Writing skills and studying skills are skills we can not easily forget, however if we don’t continue to practice them, we may lose them as well.

 The video-clip posted on YouTube has plently of more options such as viewing it as full-screen, option to discuss the video, check number of views, and to see related videos. However, the YouTube video-clip does not give us a brief description of what we are viewing unlike the video-clip on our class Com 110 wiki. The YouTube only tells us the category the video is in, which is comedy. However, we are not told the actor’s name or what he is trying to act out. Anyone can register and post videos on YouTube, but only someone authorized to do so can post them on our class wiki.

As I read that line, I kept asking myself  “Is this the end to Bud’s pathetic life? Is he really dead?” Initially despising Bud in the novel didn’t pay off. I wasn’t satisfied with the sentence. How come his sentence was so extreme? Perhaps, it may be a lack of understanding on my end of the Confucian system of justice, which the Ashantis claim to use. Certainly, things would have been different for Bud if he had belonged to a phyle. Bud explained his reasoning for not feeling a sense of belonging to any phyle. It just never worked out for him even when he tried to join one. Does that mean if you don’t belong to a group you have no rights?  It certainly seemed so, as the constable outrightly denied Bud any rights when Bud asked if he had any. Surely, there is something strangely wrong with a system that does not grant rights to an individual, who does not belong to a group.

Bud’s children, Nell and Harv, seem to be the typical young kids living in poverty. Their mom works long hours and is not paid as much. They lack the proper care and love of parents.  The storyline on the children’s end is quite underdeveloped right now even though we can see the children enjoy exploring new concepts and technology.  I’m quite fascinated by the furturistic tools used. I like how the author ends up explaining the terminology and the technology after mentioning it. At first the reader might feel taken aback, but soon finds himself/herself in place as the author explains it in the next few lines or even pages. I do curiosuly wonder about the future of Bud’s children. Will they live a life similar to their father or will things be brighter for them? Looking forward to these answers.