Home › 2007 › Page 4

Yearly Archives: 2007

multitasking

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

This one isn’t quite law related or quite technology rated, though it sort of touches on both. Just wanted to share something quite remarkable I saw this evening.

I was riding home in a cab with my wife and young son, going down Bay St. at about 8 pm this evening. While stopped at the lights, I casually noticed a gentleman, sitting in the car beside us, obviously very preoccupied with something, looking at his Blackberry  with some degree of concentration and furiously typing away with his thumbs It was quite easy to see given the backlight of his BB was very bright.

After a few seconds the light changed, he sped onwards, and so did we. And he continued to type, with some degree of vigour, apparently fully preoccupied with his urgent e-mail.

So, you ask, what is so remarkable about this, you ask? Surely this isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone tapping away on a BB in a cab, right? And the answer to that would be no. Definitely see it all the time. In fact, do it myself sometime. Great time saver.

So what’s the big deal? He was the one driving! Certainly understand perhaps taking a quick peek at your BB when stopped at the lights. But amazingly, this fellow that I saw simply continued to tap away busily while pressing the accelerator and speeding away. Neither of his hands were on the wheel, and it was quite clear to me that his vision was focused on his BB and not the road (though admittedly he did see the light turn green). I couldn’t tell if he perhaps was guiding the wheel with his elbows.

The stretch of Bay St. we were on is fairly straight, so I imagine someone could just take their hands off the wheel for a stretch and continue relatively unscathed. But do so, and at the same time also try to write an e-mail to someone? What sort of e-mail could possibly be so important to worth risking your life (and the lives of those around you)? Moreover, what kind of person would be so pressed for time that the could not let the e-mail wait a few minutes until they pulled over somewhere to compose it? I can’t imagine that he did a very good job at either.

While nothing much happened this time (he managed to make his left a bit later – too out of range to see what happened to his BB (but obviously with at least one hand off of it) I do wish him the best that karma may have in store for him.

to disclose or not to disclose – that is the question…

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A good writeup on globeandmail.com about the very, very unfortunate case of AiT and Deborah Weinstein, their lawyer. The (very) short version: AiT signs a non-binding letter of intent to get purchased by 3M. Apparently shortly thereafter there’s a leak of the deal (which causes a runup in its share price). AiT issues a press release, saying its exploring alternatives but doesn’t mention the deal. The deal is only disclosed two weeks after the leak, when a definitive agreement is signed (i.e. the deal is binding). Read more about it on the OSC site. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. One of the partners of our firm is quoted on that point:

Gary Girvan, an M&A specialist with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, says “the stakes are very high” for directors to disclose merger negotiations early because civil liabilities legislation introduced by Ontario last year could cost board members personally if they fail to disclose material events in a timely fashion. The combination of the new legislation and the AiT case puts more pressure on boards to reveal potential deals earlier, Mr. Girvan said, but the consequences can be devastating for shareholders.

“The danger is that you end up with a lot of announcements that do not come to fruition and the stocks of the listed company become volatile. Investors will be reacting to news about a deal that hasn’t crystallized,” he said.

The company and its CEO have settled with the Ontario Securities Commission (the provincial equivalent here of the SEC) but Ms Weinstein has indicated she will vigorously defend herself. As, I think, IMHO, she should.

unlimited liability in british columbia!!

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I kind of liked the ring of that – sounds rather tabloidly, with a bit of a legal touch. Obviously not as exciting as Sir Black’s trial but then again, what is?

In any event, if you happen to be a US company looking to do business in Canada or to buy a Canadian business, unlimited liability corporations are very cool because they allow US companies “flow-through” and “check the box” treatment for tax purposes.

Previously, in Canada, it was only Nova Scotia that had them, and they charged rather handsomely for them, since they were the only game in town. However, Alberta has recently enacted similar legislation out there (and word has it that it a bit less expensive) and, as I just heard a bit earlier today, apparently BC will also be doing so shortly.

So, for you US tax mavens out there, the next time you look longingly at Halifax with misty eyes at the thought of tax savings to be had on the shores of Nova Scotia, you would also do well to cast your eyes westward to the rising sun (and lowering fees!) of BC and Alta ULCs.

the internet: how not to learn to commit crimes

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

A story in the the Daily Record. The phrase “the thing speaks for itself” (which is one of those handy latin phrases I learned in law school but almost never use, except of course in blog posts – res ipsa loquitur, for you latinphiles out there…) seems to be appropriate for this:

At exactly 5:45:34 on April 18, 2004 a computer taken from the office of the attorney of Melanie McGuire, did a search on the words “How To Commit Murder.”

That same day searches on Google and MSN search engines, were conducted on such topics as `instant poisons,` `undetectable poisons,’ ‘fatal digoxin doses,’ and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Ten days later, according to allegations by the state of New Jersey, McGuire murdered her husband, William T. McGuire, at their Woodbridge apartment, using a gun obtained in Pennsylvania, one day after obtaining a prescription for a sedative known as the “date rape” drug.

As a married man, it also makes me wonder what exactly is it about divorce that is really so bad that people resort to the apparently more preferable alternative of brutally murdering their spouses (as I delicately knock on wood…).

Via Slashdot.

willy wonka’s ip policy

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Ran across the article “What’s Good for Willy Wonka is Good for America” while reading about the sad demise of a company called Miller & Kriesel, which I like (liked?) quite a bit. Ken Kriesel referred to this article in an intereview, so I thought it would be worth reading.

Not that I necessarily agree with what the article alludes to when it comes to policy for safeguarding one’s IP, but noneless an interesting take on IP lessons to be learned from the world’s most famous (albeit fictional) chocolatier:

When it came to internal IP theft, Willy Wonka did not mess around, and others can learn from his success.

Oh, BTW, in case you’re curious, M&K were the folks that invented the concept of the subwoofer and, I think, if not invented, at least helped pioneer surround sound. They’re also the folks that Lucasfilm (I guess perhaps until recently) used for all the speakers in all their studios. The story of their demise can be found relatively easily – suffice it to say, think twice before bringing your key IP over to China.

robert goddard, the fraud

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Don’t remember how I ran across this – I think this past week  it was Robert Goddard’s birthday or anniversary since he first invented the rocket. In any event, I ran across the article in the TIME 100 about him. I had no idea that, at the time he published his first paper on rocket technology, most of his colleagues did not believe it to be viable technology. Even worse, the New York Times, in a 1920 article, stated:

As anyone knew, the paper explained with an editorial eye roll, space travel was impossible, since without atmosphere to push against, a rocket could not move so much as an inch. Professor Goddard, it was clear, lacked “the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”

Needless to say, they were just a bit, shall we say, off the mark.

To me, the story serves as an interesting reminder to think carefully when you hear about someone’s “crazy” ideas. It reminds me of some of the harsh criticisms I’ve heard doled out by VCs against fledgeling companies. It reminds me of a story I heard about a very, very good lawyer turning down a couple of entrepreneurs as clients as they were kind of scruffy and had ideas that were a bit out there (only to see them sell their company for hundreds of millions just a couple of years later). It reminds me that in Canada, growth of fledgeling companies – real innovators and risk takers – just doesn’t seem to happen at the same level it does down in the US – not nearly the same. It reminds me that very few companies who start in Canada (assuming their founders don’t decide just to move to the US) stay to grow in Canada.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that there aren’t any silly, stupid and just plain crazy entrepreneurs out there who’s ideas aren’t worth a plug nickel and whose plans are doomed to failure. But even then, it makes me wonder whether here, in Canada, we have perhaps gotten too conservative, too critical and too quick to dismiss things that might, just might, work out very well. I wonder sometimes if Canada has become the New York Times circa 1920.

enterprise 2.0

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

One of the very interesting events that will be part of Toronto Tech Week is Enterprise 2.0. In the words of Thomas Purves, one of the organizers of the event:

The plan is to bring together the worlds of the leading minds from the technology and consulting side of Enterprise2.0 with business leaders (CxO’s, executives and IT/HR professionals) to bring a practical and real-world perspective to these ideas.

Sounds very interesting indeed. From what I can see in Wikipedia, the term Enterprise 2.0 was coined by someone from Harvard Business School and refers to the use of social networking stuff in the enterprise – i.e. Web 2.0 as applied to business – just to be clear, not as a business, but applied to business.

I was chatting with Mark Kuznicki who mentioned a great example of this described in Wikinomics – Goldcorp and how it took social networking and open-source type tactics to develop a very interesting approach (and very rewarding and profitable solution) to difficulties it had faced. I can’t do the topic justice here – check out the book or have a chat with Mark – its quite an interesting tale.

Similarly compelling tales can be found in a recent article in Wired on crowdsourcing, which I found very, very compelling. Take a look at Eli Lilly’s InnoCentive program or Marketocracy, both of which are mentioned in the Wired article – pretty tough to argue with the results.

So, if you’re a business person, this event would be well worth your time. So go. Then please try to convince the powers that be at my firm to adopt some of this stuff!

Just noted one quote from Wired that I thought captured one of the principles quite nicely:

4. The crowd produces mostly crap

Networks like InnoCentive, Mechanical Turk, and iStockphoto don’t increase the amount of talent – they make it possible to find and leverage that talent. Any open call for submissions – whether for scientific solutions, new product designs, or funny home videos – will elicit mostly junk. Smart companies install cheap, effective filters to separate the wheat from the chaff.

silly lawsuit of the week

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

OK. Short version of the story in InformationWeek: Woman puts up a website. She puts a “webwrap” agreement at the bottom – i.e. basically a contract that says if you use the site then you agree to the contract. Still some question as to whether such a mechanism is binding, but anyway…

So the Internet Archive of course comes along and indexes her site. Which apparently is a violation of the webwrap. So she sues, representing herself, I believe. The court throws out everything on a preliminary motion by IA except for the breach of contract.

InformationWork observes that “Her suit asserts that the Internet Archive’s programmatic visitation of her site constitutes acceptance of her terms, despite the obvious inability of a Web crawler to understand those terms and the absence of a robots.txt file to warn crawlers away.” (my emphasis). They then conclude with this statement:

If a notice such as Shell’s is ultimately construed to represent just such a “meaningful opportunity” to an illiterate computer, the opt-out era on the Net may have to change. Sites that rely on automated content gathering like the Internet Archive, not to mention Google, will have to convince publishers to opt in before indexing or otherwise capturing their content. Either that or they’ll have to teach their Web spiders how to read contracts.

(my emphasis).

They already have – sort of. It’s called robots.txt – the thing referred to above. For those of you who haven’t heard of this, its a little file that you put on the top level of your site and which is the equivalent of a “no soliciation” sign on your door. Its been around for at least a decade (probably longer) and most (if not all) search engines

From the Internet Archive’s FAQ:

How can I remove my site’s pages from the Wayback Machine?

The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots.txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.

Internet Archive uses the exclusion policy intended for use by both academic and non-academic digital repositories and archivists. See our exclusion policy.

You can find exclusion directions at exclude.php. If you cannot place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email us at info at archive dot org.

standardized methods of communications – privacy policies, etc. – more. Question is, will people be required to use it, or simply disregard and act dumb?

david johnston speech – not to be missed

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

Oddly enough there’s another presentation at the Toronto Board of Trade that isn’t in their events calendar. But that’s OK because you, loyal reader, can read it about it here and use the link above to register. Which I highly recommend, as the person who is speaking is none other than David Johnston, the President and Vice-Chancellor at Waterloo University.

I was trying to find a decent bio of him online but haven’t been able to – the one linked above to the WU site is OK but definitely does not do the man justice (because its too short and doesn’t really identify the relevance of all the roles he has played). In addition to being a brilliant academic, he literally wrote the book on securities regulation in Canada and played a key role in shaping Canada’s approach to the internet by chairing the Information Highway Advisory Council and the Blue Ribbon Panel on Smart Communities. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I had the good fortune of taking a course he instructed while he was teaching at McGill’s Faculty of Law. A remarkably good teacher and, surprisingly, with someone that has so much on his plate, very attentive to his students and always open, accessible and personable.

As you can probably tell from this post, I am extremely biased when it comes to Professor Johnston – I’m a big fan. The man is smart and is worth listening to. As an aside, I also understand that apparently a character in Erich Segal’s Love Story was based on him – a roommate or something if memory serves. Have no idea if true or not – never read the book myself. But there you go. Also have an interesting story about what he wears but will save that for another time.

Here’s the blurb:

Competitive advantage comes by engaging the brightest minds with the latest technology. Join David Johnston, President, University of Waterloo, as he shares ‘what’s in the water at Waterloo’ and illustrates how smart business leaders are successfully partnering with academia to stay on the forefront of the innovation curve.

At the Toronto Board of Trade, Downtown Centre, 1 First Canadian Place. Wednesday, March 28, 7:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Go see him.

Thanks to the always excellent Wellington Financial blog, where I noted mention of this event.

bell’s chief brand officer to speak

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Again been a bit lackadaisical on events. Sorry.

Another in the Toronto Board of Trade’s excellent C-Series (as in CEO, CFO, CTO, COO…) tech series. This time its Wade Oosterman, President of Bell Mobility and also Bell’s Chief Brand Officer. Needless to say, he’s someone worth listening to. The nub:

Mr. Oosterman will share his point-of-view about new technologies and how to use them to improve business. He will also speak about his experiences in the technology industry and ways technology can be used to increase profits.

At the Toronto Board of Trade – Downtown Centre in 1 First Canadian Place. Friday, March 30, 2007, 7:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Not that expensive, and you also get a chance to mingle with other tech folks.