Data Shows: Removing 'Rogue Sites' From Search Won't Make Much Of A Difference

from the stop-blaming-google dept

The legacy entertainment industry absolutely loves to blame Google for its problems. As I've noted in the past, it's mostly a correlation-not-causation error. That is, they see their own difficulty in adapting and sinking revenues (mainly at the record labels) and they see Google making a ton of money -- and they conclude that the two things are related, and that Google must be to blame. That's why they keep demanding that Google "take action" against the so-called "rogue sites." It seemed like a reasonable question, then, to see just how much traffic Google actually sends to these sites. Thankfully Compete tracks a lot of this kind of data... and the MPAA recently handed us a list of "rogue sites" to look at.

Pulling up the data on traffic sources for every site listed there shows that taking the big search engines out of the equation would barely matter. Across all 19 sites listed, 85% DOES NOT come from search (Google, Yahoo and Bing). Specifically, across all of those sites, the big three search engines deliver a whopping 15.2% of the traffic to those sites. Google sends about 11.5% of the traffic. Remove search links... and those sites will see a slight dip -- at best.

Of course, not all of these sites are equal, so we decided to look more closely at the favorite bogeyman of the legacy entertainment industry: The Pirate Bay. To hear the industry tell the story, if Google just blocked The Pirate Bay from its results, traffic would dry up. The evidence there suggests that the entertainment industry doesn't have the facts on their side (do they ever?). Google search drives slightly less than 22% of The Pirate Bay's traffic. Considering how many sites rely on Google for traffic, this is well below average. Add in Yahoo Search and Bing, and we're still talking about less than 28% of TPB's traffic actually coming from search.

And of that search traffic, what are people searching for? Well, most are searching for some variation on "the pirate bay." We looked at all of the search traffic to TPB for the past three months. The top 16 search terms that send traffic to TPB are some variation on the site's name. These are the top eight search terms, for example:

1. pirate bay
2. the pirate bay
3. piratebay
4. thepiratebay
5. tpb
6. piratebay.org
7. pirates bay
8. thepiratebay.org

In other words, people getting to TPB from Google already know exactly what they're looking for. It's actually pretty rare for people to just randomly search on an artist's name, and have Google send them off to The Pirate Bay. In fact, going through the top 100 search terms that take people to The Pirate Bay, less than 30% appear to be direct searches for infringing material -- and only two of those don't involve the material in question and a word that shows the person is clearly looking for infringing material (mostly "torrent", but sometimes "serial number" or something like that). Meaning that only 2 of the top 100 searches that drive people to The Pirate Bay actually involve people just searching for content without making it clear that they're looking for either TPB or a torrent file specifically. Those two searches? "Drake take care download" and "r kelly sex tape."

Take Care, of course, is Drake's high profile new album -- the same one that Drake made clear he didn't mind if people listened to the leaked versions online -- effectively sanctioning people to search for the downloads. It's also been a highly successful album on the sales front, anyway -- selling over 600,000 copies in its debut week. Doesn't sound like Drake is really suffering because of this search. As for the R. Kelly tape... well... let's just not go there.

Still, the point is pretty clear: Google and the other search engines don't really drive that much traffic to TPB (or other so-called "rogue sites"), and an awful lot of the traffic they do drive... is people searching for TPB itself (meaning they're just using Google as a shortcut, rather than to "discover" infringing works). And, when Google does drive people to specific content, it's usually because the person is already looking for what's almost certain to be an unauthorized version. Thus, the picture the industry paints of people doing innocent searches for authorized content, and somehow being waylaid by Google pointing them to TPB just isn't seen in the data. At all.

Force Google, Yahoo and Bing to "block" links to TPB and it will have almost no impact on traffic to TPB. It may annoy some people who use Google for navigation (rather than discovery), but it won't stop them from going to TPB, since that's clearly what they want. The drive to force Google to either block or "warn" people about these links seems entirely pointless based on the data. So, once again, the data suggests that the industry is in hysterics based on reasons not supported by the data. The effort to make search engines block links would be a total and complete waste of time.

Filed Under: hype, rogue sites, search, traffic
Companies: google, microsoft, the pirate bay, yahoo

Microsoft's Cold Feet Over SOPA Behind BSA's 'Rethinking' Its Views

from the tech-turn-around dept

One of the big surprises this week was that the normally "maximalist" organization, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) -- basically the RIAA of software -- did an abrupt and unexpected turnaround on SOPA. While it had been close to gushing in its initial support, it backed that down quite a bit, noting that the bill would likely have unintended consequences that needed to be dealt with. Behind that shift? Apparently Microsoft. Microsoft, who has been quite aggressive on copyright (and patent) enforcement lately, has always publicly supported these bills, in contrast to nearly all of the rest of the tech industry. However, even it appears to recognize that SOPA goes way too far, and apparently had a little discussion with the BSA about backing down.

Equally interesting in that article? Even AT&T appears to be quietly pushing back against SOPA:

Microsoft isn't the only company to embrace Protect IP yet have reservations about SOPA. Tim McKone, AT&T's executive vice president of federal relations, told CNET last week that "we have been supportive of the general framework" of Protect IP. But when it comes to SOPA, all AT&T would say is that it is "working constructively with Chairman Smith and others toward a similar end in the House."

To say this is unlike AT&T would be an understatement. It's been expected all along that they would support whatever was proposed on the SOPA/PIPA front. Apparently, now that they've taken the time to actually understand what the bill proposes, they recognize how it goes way, way too far...

Filed Under: copyright, protect ip, sopa
Companies: at&t, bsa, microsoft

Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android

from the trivial-patents dept

Earlier this year, Microsoft continued its shakedown war against all things Android by suing Barnes & Noble for patent infringement over the Nook. As we discussed, B&N is fighting back in a big way, claiming that Microsoft's shakedown tactics are an antitrust violation. As that effort moves forward, it's beginning to reveal a ton of useful info. While Microsoft continues to try to keep the patents it's using in these shakedowns "secret," B&N has been revealing them. Groklaw has the details:

The patents, we read, "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" and yet Microsoft is demanding "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in effect asserting "veto power" over Android's features. One aspect of the license, Barnes & Noble tells us, was a demand to control design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license. That, Barnes & Noble says, is "oppressive and anticompetitive". I think it's accurate to say that the company believes it is illegal.

Barnes & Noble asserts that Microsoft is attempting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it, in essence, is acting like a patent troll, threatening companies using Android with a destructive and anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents, some trivial and others ridiculously invalid or clearly not infringed, or spend a fortune on litigation.

Beyond revealing more of the patents, the company, in its filings, makes it clear what it believes Microsoft is doing:

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market.... Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.

Seems like a pretty accurate summary from what we've seen. It's really pretty sad when the focus of your business is hindering others, rather than innovating yourself.

Filed Under: android, patents, trivial
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Microsoft 'Anti-Piracy' Campaign Explains Why It's Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software

from the i-don't-get-it dept

In the distant past, Microsoft used to be willing to admit that -- especially in developing countries -- the company was significantly better off due to infringement. Bill Gates famously said: "As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." More recently, of course, Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive when it comes to its anti-piracy campaigns. The company recently did a PR stunt around Global Play Fair Day, in which it released a study, done by Keystone Strategy, which I think is supposed to explain the importance of not infringing. However, the message that it actually seems to be sending is: "paying for Microsoft software is bad for business."

I'm not joking.

The key point that we learn is that companies in Brazil, Russia, India and China "ultimately have a $1.6 billion (U.S.) competitive advantage over companies that play fair by using genuine software." In other words, if you pay for our software, you're at a competitive disadvantage. Some of the other points from the press release, which only seem to drive this point home further:

• Piracy creates more than $2.9 billion of competitive disadvantage per year across manufacturers in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific regions.
• In specific countries, Keystone determined how much pirated software harms manufacturers playing by the rules as follows: Brazil ($186 million), Russia ($115 million), India ($505 million), and China ($837 million).
• Over a five-year software life cycle, manufacturing companies in BRIC countries will lose more than $8.2 billion to their cheating competitors.
• There are more than 4.1 million PCs legally licensed by manufacturing firms that play by the rules in China. The competitive disadvantage to these firms amounts to about $837 million annually, or $4.18 billion over the typical five-year software life cycle.
• Indian manufacturers experience $505 million per year in competitive harm. Their pirating competitors could use this money to hire more than 215,000 new employees.

That last one seems to be saying: "pirating software creates jobs!" Again, the overall takeaway from this appears to be that paying for Microsoft software is bad for business, puts you at a competitive disadvantage and is going to cost you millions. I guess kudos for the honesty, but I'm sorta confused as to why Microsoft is sending out this kind of message. Well, chances are that it's part of a push to influence not companies, but policymakers to "crack down." But, even so, it's an odd campaign. If not paying for software gives you such a huge advantage, couldn't this also be interpreted as a massive promotional campaign for free and open source software?

Filed Under: bric, competitive advantage, infringement, piracy, productivity
Companies: microsoft

Barnes & Noble Claims That Microsoft Patent Shakedown Over Android Is An Antitrust Violation

from the sounds-about-right dept

There's finally been a growing recognition that intellectual property laws are about providing monopolies, and that misusing patent and copyright laws thus could be considered antitrust violations. While it's true that copyright and patents involve legal monopolies, misusing them would clearly be an abuse of a monopoly, and should be ripe for actual antitrust investigations (rather than silly antitrust attacks on companies just because they're "big.") So it's interesting to see that Barnes & Noble is pressing the feds to go after Microsoft on antitrust grounds for its Android licensing shakedown. Barnes & Noble is pretty direct in its accusations.

Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operation systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operation systems market.

The complaint also notes some odd behaviors on Microsoft's part, such as refusing to explain what patents it was threatening B&N over, unless B&N agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Microsoft specifically alleged that Barnes & Noble's Nook was infringing six patents purportedly held by Microsoft. When Barnes & Noble asked Microsoft for more detailed information related to these patents, Microsoft refused, claiming that the information was confidential and could not be shared unless Barnes & Noble first executed a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"). Because both the patents and Barnes & Noble's Nook product are public -- meaning there was no need for an NDA -- Barnes & Noble refused to sign.

The company continued negotiating with Microsoft over what seemed like a pretty bizarre discussion concerning whether B&N had to sign an NDA just to find out what patents Microsoft wanted the company to license. Because B&N did eventually sign a limited NDA, it's asking the DOJ to step in and subpoena the details it can't reveal. Still, B&N claims that Microsoft's patents would severely limit its ability to innovate:

This proposed licensing agreement covered Barnes & Noble's use of Android on its existing eReader devices but is structured in such a way to presume that Microsoft's portfolio of patents dominate, and thereby control, the entire Android operation system and any devices that use Android. Indeed, the proposed license would have severely limited and, in some cases, entirely eliminated Barnes & Noble's ability to upgrade or improve the Nook or the Nook Color, even though Microsoft's asserted patents have nothing to do with improvements.

Unfortunately, I just don't see the Justice Department gearing up for this, but that's really unfortunate. It should be watching out for abuses of patent law that appear to impact wider innovation. Instead, it's running around chasing companies based on size, not actual impact.

Filed Under: android, antitrust, patents
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Jay Walker Continues Quest To Sue The Internet Into Oblivion With Patents

from the tarnished-legacy dept

Jay Walker created Priceline. That was a good idea, and he showed that he could execute on that. But since then, apparently the only thing he's wanted to execute on is destroying his legacy by becoming a full on patent troll, and suing as many big companies as possible. Last year, we noted that Walker claimed he had effectively invented "friending" (Patent: 5,884,27 for "establishing and maintaining user-controlled anonymous communications.") and sued Facebook. That same article talked about him suing the Powerball lottery (Patent: 7,740,537 on "applying lottery multipliers").

Earlier this year, he apparently decided to accelerate that campaign, by suing basically every successful internet company. All in all, he sued 100 different companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, Facebook (again), WalMart, GroupOn, Apple and Google.

But why stop there? On October 18th, Walker got a new patent: 8,041,711, for a "Method and system for providing a link in an electronic file being presented to a user," and before the day was over, he had sued Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo and Vibrant Media over that patent. He got the lawsuits in so fast that the USPTO website apparently hadn't even listed his new patent at the time (it has now).

With those last lawsuits, Walker claimed that the various companies wouldn't have existed without his inventions ("A number of great companies can trace their genesis to technology that was first developed at Walker Digital in the mid-to-late 1990s.") Once again, he doesn't seem to shy away from ridiculous hyperbole, claiming that his invention is why those companies have targeted advertising:

Those "revolutionary technologies … were a direct result of investments made by Walker Digital," according to the complaints.

Let's put this plainly: that's bullshit. Nothing that any of those companies did was a result of any investment by Walker Digital. Walker is relying on a popular myth, that patent infringement lawsuits are about someone "copying" an idea from someone else. The reality (and studies have shown this repeatedly) is that most patent infringement lawsuits have nothing to do with one company copying someone else or copying a patent. In this case, it's pretty damn clear that these companies most certainly did not build their own targeted advertisement program because of anything that Walker did. Claiming so is flat out laughable.

Filed Under: jay walker, patents, targeted advertising
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft, vibrant media, walker digital, yahoo

Funny How Microsoft's Views On Responsibility To Competitors Differ Based On Who's In The Antitrust Hot Seat

from the this-is-known-as-hypocrisy dept

We recently mentioned the latest round of Microsoft's antitrust fight, dating back to some of its actions around Windows 95. To be clear, I think the action against Microsoft is pretty silly. It's pretty clear that the market is quite capable of dealing with any perceived Microsoft "monopoly" and routing around it. That said, one thing that is quite stunning in all of this is the sheer hypocrisy from Microsoft in discussing this case, as compared to Microsoft's own efforts to drag Google into an antitrust battle as well. Now, some will shrug and say that this is basic self-interest on Microsoft's part. It's always going to favor things that help Microsoft. But it certainly seems to weaken the validity and credibility of Microsoft's arguments.

Back in March, we noted just how ridiculous this was, when Microsoft complained about Google to the European Union, whining that Google made it difficult for Microsoft's platforms (mainly the Bing search engine and Microsoft's mobile platform) to access YouTube video data. At the time Microsoft's General Counsel sure seemed to insist that Google had a duty to engineer its platform to make life easier for its competitors. Here's the quote we highlighted back in March:

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube--and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft's new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It's done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn't offer a competing search service.

Note how in both paragraphs, Smith seems to clearly suggest that Google has a duty to engineer its products to make life easier for Google's own competitors.

Okay. Now, jump over to the ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft by Novell. And note how Microsoft's lawyers appear to argue directly against this idea that a company should have a duty to build its products to help competitors:

Microsoft attorney Steve Aeschbacher said Novell is saying it wishes Microsoft would have developed Windows 95 differently than it did.

"The law basically doesn't require people to design their products to the whim or demand of other companies. You get to design your own products. There isn't any legal obligation for us to do what they wanted us to do," he said.

Seems to directly contradict what Microsoft said just months ago when it was talking about Google. Furthermore, in Microsoft's motion for summary judgment (pdf) in the current case -- a brief you can be sure MS General Counsel Brad Smith was well aware of -- Microsoft again appears to argue the exact opposite of what it said in regards to Google just months ago:

The allegations underpinning count I are premised on the notion that Microsoft had some affirmative duty to assist—or to continue assisting—a competitor. Novell complains that Microsoft harmed its office productivity applications designed for use with Windows 95 by (i) discontinuing the formal documentation of six APIs in pre-release versions of Windows 95, (ii) failing to include in Windows 95 certain functionality that Novell would have liked, and (iii) failing to endorse Novell’s applications by granting Novell a license to use the Windows 95 logo. These allegations are not cognizable under the antitrust laws.

The objective of our antitrust laws is to promote competition. Successful companies—even monopolists—are encouraged to compete vigorously. Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 544 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A monopolist, no less than any other competitor, is permitted and indeed encouraged to compete aggressively on the merits.”). Monopolists are encouraged to innovate and are entitled to retain the benefits of such innovation. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 281 (2d Cir. 1979). Moreover, a monopolist is not required to help its smaller rivals or shield them from the rigors of competition. Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370, 375-76 (7th Cir. 1986) (“A firm with lawful monopoly power has no general duty to help its competitors.”); Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 568 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Antitrust law . . . does not require one competitor to give another a break just because failing to do so offends notions of fair play.”).

I agree very much with the Microsoft filing in this case. Antitrust law shouldn't be about propping up competitors or requiring a company to engineer its products in a certain manner to help competitors. And while I understand that Microsoft's position will shift depending on whatever benefits Microsoft best, it seems like the company is being ridiculously short-sighted in being so blatantly hypocritical and inconsistent. It hurts its chances in this particular lawsuit, and it hurts Microsoft's overall credibility. While I understand that Microsoft thinks tossing around antitrust accusations at Google may make life difficult for Google, it seems like both companies would be a lot better off if neither of them tossed antitrust arguments at the other. It seems only likely to backfire.

Filed Under: antitrust, brad smith, competition, responsibility
Companies: google, microsoft, novell

Bill Gates Called To Testify In Antitrust Trial Over Windows 95; No This Isn't An Old Post

from the the-wheels-of-justice-turn-slowly dept

Thought that Microsoft's antitrust troubles from a decade plus ago were all settled and over with, beyond a little monitoring? Think again. The case involving Novell is continuing onward... and lined up on the docket to testify is Bill Gates, who's being called to explain some questionable emails he sent all the way back in 1994, which seem to suggest plans to use Windows to limit competing office productivity software offerings. Of course, perhaps if Novell hadn't been spending so much time and money fighting Microsoft, it could have spent more time actually building products people want.

Filed Under: antitrust, bill gates
Companies: microsoft, novell

Can We Just Admit That It's Insane When Microsoft Has A 'Licensing Program' For Someone Else's Products?

from the just-saying dept

There have been a string of similar "deals" announced recently (though we do wonder about the details), but Microsoft has announced that Qanta is the latest company to "license" its usage of Android and Chrome. Here's Microsoft's quote on the subject:

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Quanta, and proud of the continued success of our Android licensing program in resolving IP issues surrounding Android and Chrome devices in the marketplace."

Let's sit back and consider the sheer insanity of this entire effort. Microsoft is going around, trying to get lots of companies to buy licenses to Google's products, when there is simply no evidence that those products infringe on any Microsoft patents. And, notably, Microsoft has never sued Google over those products.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can explain how a system that allows a company like Microsoft to set up a licensing business on someone else's products without any proven legal basis other than the implied threat that they might sue, is a functioning system? It's a huge joke.

Filed Under: android, chrome, licensing, patents
Companies: google, microsoft, qanta

DailyDirt: Just Another Day On The Job

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

For some folks, it's Columbus Day AND a day off from work. For those of you who didn't go to work today, here are a few interesting stories about working in some unique (or seemingly unique) situations.

• Gizmodo's Brian Lam recounts his handling of the "lost&found" iPhone4 with Steve Jobs, where Lam regrets being too greedy in pursuit of a good scoop. Apparently, he didn't ask himself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" [url]
• A former Microsoft employee describes his experience working on Bing... in a not-so-favorable light. The grass is always greener? [url]
• Five rock-climbers/engineers scaled down the Washington Monument to assess its damage -- and had some fun while doing it. Interestingly, there's a Society of Professional Rope Access Technicians that certifies rappelling experience for dangerous jobs like that... [url]
• To discover more interesting business-related content, check out what's on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: bing, columbus day, iphone4 scoop, rock climbing, washington monument
Companies: apple, microsoft