President Of CBS News Knew 'Reporter' John Miller Would Go Back To NYPD Before His 60 Min Propaganda Piece Aired

from the so-why-did-the-piece-still-air dept

So we've already discussed the massively conflicted John Miller, employed by CBS News while clearly being about to take a job in counterterrorism, reporting for 60 Minutes the most amazing pro-NSA propaganda infomercial you can imagine. At the time, the rumors were already swirling that Miller was about to take the job as head of counterterrorism for the NYPD, though he denied it. He also, laughably, insisted that he'd asked hard questions of the NSA, none of which made it to air (assuming he actually did ask hard questions). In response to all of this, Miller insulted his critics as not being real reporters (despite the fact many of them were), and then confirmed the big conflict that most people expected, taking the job that everyone knew he was going to take.

A NY Times piece on Miller notes that the offer to take the job was actually "informally" given to him over dinner with incoming police commissioner (and close friend of Miller) Bill Bratton on December 5th. That's a week and a half before 60 Minutes aired its piece. And, among the "everyone" who knew he was taking the job was... David Rhodes, the President of CBS News.

“As soon as the reports came out that de Blasio” -- Bill de Blasio, the city’s new mayor -- “was thinking of bringing Bratton back, I immediately assumed that John would be going too,” Mr. Rhodes said in an interview. “It was literally the first thing that I thought of.”

And yet... he still allowed Miller's highly conflicted story on the NSA to air. That raises all sorts of questions, especially for CBS News, whose editorial failings over the past few months have received a tremendous amount of attention.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bill bratton, bill de blasio, cbs news, conflict of interest, david rhodes, john miller, nsa, nypd, propaganda
Companies: cbs

NSA's Personal Propagandist For CBS Officially Takes Counterterrorism Job Everyone Knew He Was Getting

from the journalism! dept

When 60 Minutes did its hack PR job for the NSA a few weeks ago, lots of people called out the fact that the reporter who handled the segment, John Miller, wasn't just a former intelligence official working for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (which oversees the NSA), but that he was widely rumored to have worked out a deal for a new job for the NYPD, heading up "counterterrorism." Even though there were multiple reports at the time, including one that claimed it was a "99.44% done deal," when asked about it, Miller lied. He told a reporter, "you know as much about this as I do."

That was clearly Miller lying -- something that Miller has had an issue with in the past -- as the "rumor" is now confirmed and Miller has accepted his job doing "counterterrorism" for the NYPD. And while some might say that doing counterterrorism for a city police force is different than working for national intelligence, that's only because you're not familiar with the NYPD, which has set up something of a shadow NSA/CIA to do all sorts of activities not normally associated with a police force.

And, of course, since the press was clearly familiar with Miller's expected role, it raises serious questions about why 60 Minutes allowed the puff piece to move forward with a seriously conflicted "journalist." While Miller has lashed out at critics, rather than respond to a single point raised, the brand that comes out worst in all this is clearly CBS and 60 Minutes -- which basically let an intelligence official do an entire propaganda piece on the NSA. 60 Minutes used to be about hard hitting journalism. Now, apparently, they think it's "journalism" to shill for the surveillance state.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, cbs news, conflict of interest, john miller, journalism, nsa, nypd, propaganda
Companies: cbs

CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest

from the journalism! dept

Last night I started seeing a bunch of folks on Twitter absolutely trashing 60 Minutes. We had mentioned last week that 60 Minutes would be doing something about the NSA, including the revelation that some NSA officials favored granting Snowden asylum, and that Keith Alexander ridiculously stated that people should be held accountable for their actions -- without recognizing the irony of that statement when pointed at himself. What we didn't realize was that the episode of 60 Minutes would be a complete propaganda infomercial for the NSA. Among the many, many, many issues with the program:

• The reporting was conducted by John Miller, a former intelligence community official (who worked for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NSA) in a spokesperson role and a variety of historical roles in the intelligence community. While he does "disclose" the ODNI role upfront (but not the others), he left out that he's about to be hired in an intelligence role for the NYPD, a deal that has been described as "a 99.44 percent done deal." Also, in the past, when he also worked for the NYPD, he had a bit of a problem with telling the truth. Miller is, clearly, an intelligence industry spokesperson at heart, pretending to be a journalist here.
• There was not a single hard hitting question asked throughout. It was all softballs. Seriously. Many of the setup questions were the same bogus strawmen we've seen the NSA focus on in the past -- concerning things like "is the NSA listening to everyone's calls." But that isn't what people are actually concerned about. At no point did they appear to even attempt to ask followup questions when the NSA people made clearly misleading statements, such as those concerning the surveillance of "US persons."
• Not a single critic of the NSA was shown during the entire episode. Seriously. Not a single claim by the NSA was refuted or pushed back on. At all. Basically, Miller served up softballs, the NSA hit 'em back, and the "investigative journalists" at 60 Minutes said, "Wow, isn't that amazing!"
• They admit that they did this piece because the NSA "invited them in." In other words, this was purely a propaganda piece from the very outset. The most hysterical thing to watch is the "overtime" bit that they have on the website in which they explain how 60 Minutes got to do this story on the NSA, which reveals that basically the NSA asked them to do this puff piece and then controlled every second of the process. There are even a few outtakes where the NSA "handlers" cut off parts of interviews to tell people what to say.
• Miller claims he spoke to NSA critics and asked them what they would ask, but that's not reflected in the questioning at all. He then defends the piece saying that his goal was to let the NSA explain its side of the story, which he argues wasn't getting enough attention. Seriously.

  Because this is really the side of the story that has been mined only in the most superficial ways. We’ve heard plenty from the critics. We’ve heard a lot from Edward Snowden. Where there’s been a distinctive shortage is, putting the NSA to the test and saying not just ‘We called for comment today’ but to get into the conversation and say that sounds a lot like spying on Americans, and then say, ‘Well, explain that.’”

  Try not to laugh at that. He even claims that he didn't want it to be a puff piece -- which is exactly what it was.
• The one big "revelation" in the piece involves NSA people implying, but never actually saying, how they stopped some sort of plot to turn everyone's computers into bricks by infecting the BIOS. But, as lots of people who actually understand this stuff are noting, that segment was pure gibberish:

  There are no technical details. Yes, they talk about "BIOS", but it's redundant, unrelated to their primary claim. Any virus/malware can destroy the BIOS, making a computer unbootable, "bricking" it. There's no special detail here. All they are doing is repeating what Wikipedia says about BIOS, acting as techie talk layered onto the discussion to make it believable, much like how Star Trek episodes talk about warp cores and Jeffries Tubes.
  
  Stripped of techie talk, this passage simply says "The NSA foiled a major plot, trust us." But of course, there is no reason we should trust them. It's like how the number of terrorist plots foiled by telephone eavesdropping started at 50 then was reduced to 12 then to 2 and then to 0, as the NSA was forced to justify their claims under oath instead of in front of news cameras. The NSA has proven itself an unreliable source for such information -- we can only trust them if they come out with more details -- under oath.
  
  Moreover, they don't even say what they imply. It's all weasel-words. Nowhere in the above passage does a person from the NSA say "we foiled a major cyber terror plot". Instead, it's something you piece together by the name "BIOS plot", cataclysmic attacks on our economy (from the previous segment), and phrases like "would it have worked".

• Part of the piece, bizarrely, focused on smearing Ed Snowden based on a completely out of context statement about how he would work at home with a sheet over his head to keep work secret. Given the realities of what the NSA is doing, and what Snowden was up to, that doesn't sound so strange. Yet, Miller (not the NSA), made it out like Snowden was a wack job for this:

  John Miller: At home, they discovered Snowden had some strange habits.
  
  Rick Ledgett: He would work on the computer with a hood that covered the computer screen and covered his head and shoulders, so that he could work and his girlfriend couldn't see what he was doing.
  
  John Miller: That's pretty strange, sitting at your computer kind of covered by a sheet over your head and the screen?
  
  Rick Ledgett: Agreed.

There was more, but it's more of the same. You have the producers of the episode oohing and ahhing about how the NSA's headquarters looked like something out of Star Trek, and how they had to fight hard to get the NSA to open a door for the NSA's "black chamber" -- showing a couple of cubicles.

Coming so soon on the heels after 60 Minutes totally bungled a report on Benghazi, you would think that the once respected news program might try a little harder not to post something so obviously ridiculous. But, apparently not. While many have suggested that the NSA communications people should get a raise for pulling off such pure propaganda, some are pointing out that the whole thing was so obviously a bogus puff piece that no one's buying it. Anthony DeRosa has put together a series of tweets about the episode and hasn't yet been able to find a single person who reacted positively to it. Not a single one.

It's no secret that the NSA isn't very good at PR but, in this case, not only may they have harmed their case, they helped CBS News shoot themselves in the foot, yet again, over whatever shreds of journalistic credibility they may have had.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, cbs news, conflict of interest, ed snowden, john miller, journalism, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda, surveillance
Companies: cbs

Bloomberg News Kills All Credibility: Kills Story Critical Of China, Fires Reporter Who Reveals This Fact

from the who-would-trust-them-again? dept

Yet another major news organization has decided that it no longer needs credibility. Bloomberg News got some attention last week after it came out that the editor-in-chief had told reporters to kill a series of stories "that might anger China" and then defended that decision by arguing it was similar to appeasing the Nazis. I'm not joking.

In the call late last month, Mr. Winkler defended his decision, comparing it to the self-censorship by foreign news bureaus trying to preserve their ability to report inside Nazi-era Germany, according to Bloomberg employees familiar with the discussion.

Apparently, the main story that was killed was by reporter Michael Forsythe, who had been working on it for nearly a year. And, oh yeah, it was scheduled to run the very same month that Bloomberg's CEO was "visiting China to strengthen business ties between the media-sensitive country and the financial services company." I'm sure that's a coincidence.

And... once the NY Times broke the story, Bloomberg fired Forsythe. Perhaps the firing isn't too surprising: revealing to a competing publication embarrassing information about your own publisher self-censoring to appease China (and justifying it by positively calling up images of appeasing Hitler) probably means you're going to lose your job. But, of course, the way to have built back at least some credibility after the news was revealed would have been to admit the mistake and let Forsythe publish the story. As it stands now, any reporting from Bloomberg should be automatically seen as suspect, as the editor-in-chief has admitted that he will appease local governments to keep them happy, and the reporting is expected to reflect that sort of propaganda-happy posture.

Filed Under: china, conflict of interest, journalism, michael forsythe
Companies: bloomberg

Biglaw Partner's Company Patent Trolls Firm Client

from the ethics? dept

“Siri? How do I commit a massive breach of my professional and ethical obligations?”

As previewed in Morning Docket, a Morgan Lewis partner allegedly patent trolled a firm client.

I say “allegedly” not to suggest there’s any question over whether the partner owned the trolling company, but because the partner claims he had no involvement in the decision to sue his firm’s most prominent tech client. Even if he didn’t, it hardly sounds kosher.

Whatever his precise role, he might have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for that meddling privilege log…

Here’s the full story: A company called FlatWorld (which is not an 1884 commentary on Victorian culture) filed suit against Apple. The structure of the company is curious:

Court documents unsealed this week reveal who’s behind FlatWorld, and it’s anything but typical. FlatWorld is partly owned by the named inventor on the patents, a Philadelphia design professor named Slavko Milekic. But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple’s own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. E-mail logs show that the attorney, John McAleese, worked together with his wife and began planning a wide-ranging patent attack against Apple’s touch-screen products in January 2007 — just days after the iPhone was revealed to the world.

John McAleese is no longer on the Morgan Lewis website. Thankfully, we can go to the Internet WABAC Machine.

FlatWorld’s claims are based around the work of Slavko Milekic. Milekic holds a 2005 patent (6,920,619 B1 for anyone playing along at home) for an original way of interacting with a touch-sensitive visual display, which sounds like it might implicate the iPhone’s — and other Apple products’ — user interface. And he had help deciding to sue from his other business partner, McAleese’s wife:

Jennifer McAleese reached out to numerous “troll patent” companies, as she called them, convinced that she and Milekic had an “excellent position against Apple” if and when they chose to sue. She e-mailed top patent lawyers at Google and Nokia, competitors known to be in patent clashes with Apple.

The whole time she was advised by her husband, a lawyer who had access to reams of confidential Apple data—but who says he never touched it. (Apple doesn’t see it that way.) Together, the McAleeses created “an indirect and covert pipeline” of information pumped to FlatWorld’s attorneys according to Apple lawyers. Now Apple wants FlatWorld’s law firm, Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, kicked off the case.

But this highlights the dumbest aspect of this covert investment: the decision for John McAleese to hold a 35 percent stake in the company under his own name. If the practice of the company involved Jennifer McAleese doing the legwork to create a degree of separation between Morgan Lewis and the lawsuit, then why not put the entire company investment in her name? For that matter, why not use a maiden name? Perhaps I’m introducing too much logic into this scheme.

But the most important take away from this episode — the practice pointer, if you will — is that you should carefully review the privilege logs you get sent:

But Apple apparently didn’t know about John McAleese until February. That’s when opposing lawyers sent Apple a “privilege log,” a kind of spreadsheet explaining why certain documents are not going to be handed over during the discovery phase of litigation. FlatWorld listed all the e-mails between the company’s founder and the various lawyers he communicated with about possibly filing suit together. There have been many and one of the lawyers listed was McAleese. In fact, that name showed up more than any other lawyer. Even more eye-opening was his identification in a “key” to the privilege log: “Attorney at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.”

This got the attention of an Apple in-house lawyer, Jeff Risher, who rang the first alarm bell in Cupertino. On February 25, Risher fired off an e-mail to a Morgan Lewis partner named Scott Garner. That e-mail is redacted in the public court record, but Risher couldn’t have been happy. Garner forwarded the whole thing to his McAleese at 12:48am, asking “Do you know what this is about?”

McAleese did know what it was about and suggested it was no big deal.

Apple thought it was a big deal.

And this seems to be a dangerously growing trend.

Underneath the FlatWorld fiasco is an important question: just how many lawyers at huge law firms—which compete to defend Silicon Valley icons like Apple from patent litigation—have “gone rogue” and become implicated in patent trolling themselves, either as investors like McAleese or as inventors?

In 2007, a top-billing Fish & Richardson partner named Scott Harris was fired when a patent he invented was used to sue Google. That affair exploded into litigation between Harris and his former firm.

Other big-firm lawyers who created so-called “patent troll” companies haven’t been punished; they’ve prospered. Irah Donner was a partner at WilmerHale when he was asked to shut down his patent licensing campaign, which previously earned him hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement payouts from car companies like Honda, Toyota, and Ford. But his patents continue to be held by companies connected to some of the most controversial trolling in the country, including the infamous MPHJ “scanner trolls.” Meanwhile, Donner has moved from one prestigious large law firm to the next.

Michael Powell was a young associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Hedges in 2008. That year, he took a patent on an “online idea marketplace” from his defunct dot-com and used it to sue Microsoft, Gannett, McClatchy, Monster.com, and CareerBuilder.com. His firm, a go-to patent defense firm for Google and Samsung, didn’t fire him. Instead, he made partner.

I’m volunteering to run the very short CLE course: “Don’t try to troll your own clients.”

Filed Under: conflict of interest, lawyers, patents
Companies: apple

USTR Nominee Froman Called 'One Of The Most Egregious Examples Of The Way The Revolving Door Works Between Gov't And Business'

from the that-doesn't-bode-well dept

After posting a bit about Michael Froman, the new nominee for USTR, I was already skeptical that he'd be any improvement over the predecessor, Ron Kirk. After all, Froman was deeply involved in three of the worst free trade agreements that the US has negotiated over the past few years, which more or less set the model for the ambitious and dangerously misguided ACTA and TPP agreements. However, some others have pointed out that it may be even worse, highlighting a Felix Salmon blog post from 2009, in which he calls Michael Froman out as being an "egregious example" of the revolving door problem we've highlighted between regulators and the businesses they regulate.

[Michael Froman's] one of the most egregious examples — up there with Bob Rubin, literally — we’ve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.

That's troubling, to say the least. Salmon points to a Matt Taibbi piece for Rolling Stone that highlights some very questionable activity on the part of Froman, including keeping his job at Citibank while helping to select the economic team for Obama's first term... the very folks who would be in charge of regulating Citibank.

Leading the search for the president’s new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama’s biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters — chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm....

That piece also talks about Froman's role in getting Timothy Geithner his job at Treasury, right after Geithner helped craft the bailout of Citibank that basically put all the risk on the Fed and didn't require any Citi concessions or exec changes, despite their own culpability in making a ton of bad investments.

Geithner, in other words, is hired to head the U.S. Treasury by an executive from Citigroup — Michael Froman — before the ink is even dry on a massive government giveaway to Citigroup that Geithner himself was instrumental in delivering. In the annals of brazen political swindles, this one has to go in the all-time Fuck-the-Optics Hall of Fame.

Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the government’s bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.

I was hopeful that perhaps we'd get a USTR who was in favor of openness and transparency, but it looks like Froman may be the quintessential example of a backroom dealer, who already has a reputation for pushing through bad trade agreements.

Filed Under: conflict of interest, michael froman, revolving door, soft corruption, ustr

Holy Conflict Of Interest! Tell Congress That The Public Good Is More Important Than Their Chance To Cameo In Batman

from the check-it-out dept

We recently wrote about the fact that PIPA sponsor and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy has received yet another cameo appearance in the latest Batman flick. We're sure it's because of his acting skills, rather than his ability to pass legislation that favors Time Warner (who -- coincidentally, of course -- is a major contributor to his campaigns). In response to this story, the good folks at Demand Progress have set up HolyConflictOfInterest.com with an original comic, "The Adventures of Leahy & Time Warner": Click through not just for a larger version, but also for tools from Demand Progress that let you tell your elected officials that you don't appreciate such conflicts of interest.

Update: By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be).

Filed Under: batman, cameo, conflict of interest, patrick leahy, politics
Companies: warner bros.

Peter Sunde, The Pirate Bay Spokesperson, Details Why His Conviction Was A Farce

from the convicted-for-doing-what-now? dept

Last week, I noticed that former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde had posted the letter that he sent to the Swedish Administration as part of his plea to be pardoned. It was written in Swedish, and I wasn't comfortable that the Google translation was accurate enough. Thankfully, however, Rick Falkvinge has posted a full translation in English. Many of the points Sunde raises came out during the trial, but the key points -- on why he didn't actually do the things he was convicted of -- were new to me, and should concern anyone who actually believes in the rule of law and an impartial judicial system.

The serious conflicts of interests of many involved in the case have been covered before. The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial. That multiple judges had strong connections to copyright maximalist groups or even competitors to The Pirate Bay should also be of great concern. However, even if we ignore all of that, Sunde's detailed explanation for his conviction is really quite incredible. He notes that he was specifically convicted of three things... which he did not do. Remember, Peter's role was as that of a spokesperson. He did not actually work on the technology of the site at all, but the prosecution needed to show that he did -- so Peter accuses them of concocting a story about how he set up a "load balancer" for the site, because he admitted that he knew what a load balancer was. However, as Peter notes (1) he did not set up a load balancer, (2) the server in question was put there by someone unrelated to The Pirate Bay and (3) it was never connected to the internet anyway. And yet he was still convicted because of it.

Among other things, I’m supposed to have installed a computer that operated as a so-called load balancer – a computer that makes it possible to distribute the workload of big web services among different computers. It reads clear as day in the Appeals Court verdict that I’m responsible for configuring this computer. Such a computer did indeed exist in one of the racks that The Pirate Bay was located in. On the other hand, it wasn’t connected with a single wire or cable in any way. Some computers have been investigated at the National Forensic Laboratory (Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium). Some computers have been combed for details. In some cases, the prosecutor has called owners of computers to ask them if they want to press charges of electronic trespassing against Gottfrid Svartholm, as they found that he has had access to computers. Computers he has been maintaining for clients. The computer I’m supposed to have been responsible for isn’t mentioned with a single line of text, except in the seizing protocol from the raid. I cannot find the configuration I’ve been convicted of creating. The configuration I have created, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the Swedish Appeals Court. The configuration I can say with 100% certainty would have proven that this computer had never been used for The Pirate Bay. The owner had placed it in the rack by themselves just a few weeks prior to the raid.

During the Appeals Court proceedings, prosecutor Hakan Roswall confirmed my story of this, that this machine had never been used in the operations of The Pirate Bay. Therefore, my lawyer put no energy into bringing it up in his final statement. And yet, Roswall said after this, that I had been responsible for it. And in the end, I was convicted because of it. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that this computer has been in use, not for anything at all

I know that some who dislike The Pirate Bay won't care about the specifics here. They'll argue that the site itself is pure evil, and he was deservedly convicted. I think that, if you agree with the court's basic reasoning for the convictions, you might be able to make a credible case against the two actual founders of the site who ran it. But Peter wasn't one of those guys. He was just "the spokesperson," and it appears that he got railroaded here, based on a very questionable use of the law.

Of course, he admits that it's unlikely his plea will work, and he fully expects to spend some time in jail. However, as for the fine that's been levied against him, he notes that the 11 million euros he will owe is "fantasy numbers" that he knows is unpayable, meaning that he's likely to be effectively banished from Sweden, noting that "this debt is equivalent to exile, to deportation."

Separately, Peter posted a much shorter blog post, which I'm trusting the Google translation feature on -- so I warn you that accuracy may be slightly sketchy. In it, Peter notes that the prosecution has effectively admitted that he didn't actually do the stuff he was convicted of, but claims that doesn't change his responsibility. Seriously. Here's the rough automated translation:

That the work of the Court of Appeal found Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi begun in late 2005 may not have resulted in actual service until the time of the raid against TPB, does not affect the responsibility of the act for which Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi convicted.

In other words, he didn't provide the actual services he was convicted of, but that doesn't make him any less responsible for the things he didn't actually do. Swedish justice in action.

Filed Under: conflict of interest, peter sunde, plea, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

Big Patent Holders & Big Patent Law Firms Bring Judges To Belgium For Boondoggle...

from the conflict-of-interest? dept

Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to the troubling news that an organization of patent holders has organized a conference and is flying in a bunch of judges who deal with patent issues from around the globe to hang out with them at a conference for a few days. As Kevin Outterson notes, this seems like a major conflict of interest:

Does anyone see a conflict of interest when the world’s richest patent owners fly judges from all over the world to a 3-day conference in Brussels?  Here's the lede:

Bringing nearly 100 judges from more than 30 countries to Europe.  Sharing experiences among patent-experienced judges from many countries and between the patent bench and bar.

This gathering won't hear from patent skeptics.  The Platinum sponsors are Akin Gump, Du Pont, ExxonMobil, Finnegan, P&G and Johnson & Johnson.  The program committee is unabashedly pro-IP.  No voice for the public domain; MSF, Oxfam, Jamie Love, Sean Flynn and other public interest voices aren't on the program

I'm fine with IP maximalists holding conferences; I'm worried when judges from around the planet are wined and dined while hearing only a pro-IP point of view.

I agree that this is quite troubling. The conference is being organized in part by perhaps the most powerful US patent judge, the chief judge of CAFC, Randall Rader. Rader's a very interesting guy, a fantastic speaker and extremely entertaining -- but he has a huge blind spot when it comes to understanding how patents are regularly used to stifle innovation. Perhaps that explains why the conference that he supposedly helped put together appears to feature none of the many top voices who are worried about where the patent system is today.

Perhaps even more troubling, as Outterson points out, is that this conference -- again, supposedly with Rader's support -- is being sold to patent lawyers (who have to pay $1475 plus travel and lodging to attend) as a way to get access to the very judges who will be handling their cases:

Conference attendees will have an opportunity to share experiences with nearly one hundred judges from around the world. Beginning with a welcome reception on Monday, judges will attend sessions and social events with intellectual property law attorneys and other interested parties.

As Outterson notes, this "sounds like buying social access to IP judges to me." It seems shameful that Rader would allow his name and reputation to be used for such things. It's equally shameful that USPTO boss David Kappos is appearing at the event. Again, it's fine to have events discussing IP issues, and even fine for patent system supporters to put together their own conferences. But it's troubling when the event is presented as a way to access judges, and all of the sponsors and organizers seem to have a particular view on the state of patent law today, which is seriously contrasted by actual evidence and research in the market.

Filed Under: conference, conflict of interest, judges, patents, randall rader

Craigslist A 'Cesspool Of Crime'? Or Are Bad Reporters A Cesspool Of Repeating Dubious Research?

from the i'll-take-the-latter,-jim dept

Slashdot points us to an article at the "International Business Times," that reports on a study from the AIM Group which claims that Craigslist is 'a cesspool of crime.' Interesting claim. What seems to be totally missing from the IBTimes report is the fact that AIM Group works for Craigslist competitors and, in this case, the "research" was funded by Craigslist wannabe-Oodle. That's not mentioned in the IBTimes report at all. In fact, the only mention of Oodle in the article is a quote by the CEO of Oodle mocking Craigslis and playing up Oodle... but never mentioning that he paid for the research in question.

As for the actual "research," it seems laughable, at best, and should immediately raise questions about any AIM Group research. The "research" basically scoured news reports and found a grand total of 330 "crimes" in the past year that have some sort of loose connection to Craigslist. I have a hard time seeing how that makes it a "cesspool" of crime. That's a very small number, especially considering the hundreds of millions of posts and transactions that take place via Craigslist. This seems like a massive cheap shot by both Oodle and AIM Group, and it's sad that a reporter would repeat the claims without noting the obvious problems with it. That's not journalism. That's being a PR service.

Meanwhile, looking at the "details" from AIM Group make the results even less compelling. They play up that 12 murders had a loose connection to Craigslist, but a bunch of those appear to be from one deranged individual. It seems pretty ridiculous to blame Craigslist for that.

Filed Under: classifieds, conflict of interest, crime, reporting, research, studies
Companies: aim group, craigslist, oodle