Indian ban on spurious mobile phones found inadequate

The Indian government has asked mobile service providers not to allow calls on their networks from mobile phones without proper International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers from Dec. 1, citing security reasons. The IMEI number is used by GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) networks to identify mobile devices. The order, however, has a glaring loophole as it does not provide for the blocking of calls from phones that use "clone" IMEIs, said Pankaj Mohindroo, national president of the Indian Cellular Association (ICA), a trade body that represents mobile handset makers and other mobile technology vendors.

It is used by operators to block a stolen phone from using the network. The Sept. 3 order from India's Ministry of Communications & IT only refers to phones that have no IMEI numbers or have a sequence of 0s in place of the IMEI number, or "non-genuine" numbers that are not, in fact, IMEI numbers. Clone IMEIs are those that have been issued to registered handset vendors but have been copied on to phones of dubious origins, Mohindroo said. ICA has told the government that handsets that have clone IMEI numbers should also be banned in the interest of security, Mohindroo said. A large number of mobile phones that are sold in India are either spurious or unbranded, often sold at low prices without bills or warranty.

The use of mobile phones without proper IMEI numbers is seen by the government as a threat to the country's security, as terrorists have been found to use mobile phones extensively. A large number of consumers have bought these phones because of their low prices. In a letter to service providers in April, the Ministry of Communications & IT recognized that some of the users of phones without proper IMEIs were "genuine innocent subscribers." Using software would be a far more attractive option than to have to throw out the phones, said Sridhar T. Pai, CEO of Tonse Telecom, a firm that researches the telecom market in India. The government approved earlier this year a Genuine IMEI Implant (GII) proposal from service providers that programs genuine IMEI on mobile handsets. Pai added that he had not evaluated the software yet.

Operators have delayed implementing the ban because customers are their key assets and they will not do anything that will upset these customers, Pai said. Banning of the use of phones without adequate IMEI numbers has been delayed because of lack of clarity from the government and also because of a slow response from service providers that had earlier been ordered to block calls from phones without proper IMEIs from July 1, according to analysts. The Cellular Operators Association of India, an association of GSM mobile operators, was not available for comment, but an official said in private that its members would be able to meet the Dec. 1 deadline. Phones with fake IMEI numbers are to be detected by reference to the IMEI database of the GSM Association (GSMA). The database of the GSMA will be able to detect fake IMEIs, but will not detect phones that have clone IMEIs, unless there is also a device management program that reveals the specification of the device, Mohindroo said. The Sept. 3 government order has expanded the ban to include mobile phones that have fake IMEIs, besides phones that have no IMEIs or a string of zeros in place of the IMEI. It has ordered service providers to make provisions in their Equipment Identity Register (EIR) so that calls from phones from all three types of defaulting phones are rejected from Dec. 1 by the networks.

The EIR will then have to check whether the IMEI matches with the original device to which the number was issued, he added.

French National Assembly votes for new 'three strikes' bill

The French government is still pursuing its plan to cut off Internet users accused of copyright infringement - although a new version of the so-called "three strikes" bill approved by the National Assembly on Tuesday now requires that a court make the decision to suspend a surfer's Internet access. An earlier version of the law handed the power to disconnect surfers to a newly created High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet (Hadopi - another nickname for the law). It was approved by the French Parliament in April but the Constitutional Council struck that measure down as unconstitutional before it was signed into law. The bill takes its "three strikes" nickname from the three accusations of copyright infringement that must be levelled at surfers before their Internet access is suspended.

The government immediately vowed to return to parliament with a new bill, Hadopi 2, that would satisfy the Constitutional Council. That means that the government must now form a committee of deputies and senators to come up with a compromise bill and submit it to both houses for a vote. The Senate approved that text in July, and on Tuesday deputies in the National Assembly adopted it by 285 votes to 225. However, the deputies made a number of amendments to the Senate's text, and in France a bill cannot become law until both houses of Parliament agree to the same text. The compromise process usually goes without a hitch, but in a surprise vote in April the National Assembly rejected the compromise text for the first version of the law, Hadopi, by 21 votes to 15. While the new bill requires that suspension of Internet access be ordered by a judge, rather than decided by an administrative agency in an automated process, it toughens sanctions in other areas. That could be the case if their computer was attacked by malware and fell under someone else's control, or if their wireless Internet access was inadequately secured.

Internet subscribers will now be held liable if someone uses their Internet connection to illegally download copyright works - even if they do not explicitly authorize it, but allow it to happen through negligence. The bill also adds a €5,000 (US$7,300) fine for Internet service providers that fail to suspend the Internet access of a customer when ordered by a judge, and a €3,750 fine for surfers who take out a second Internet subscription to get around a suspension ordered by a judge. But the premise that songwriters and musicians will benefit from the stronger penalties for copyright infringement proposed by the bill is disputed by many - including the artists themselves. The latest bill's progress has been closely followed by other governments under pressure from record labels and film studios to crack down on Internet piracy. Last week a group of predominantly British musicians, the Featured Artists Coalition, criticized U.K. government plans for a similar three-strikes law, saying that "Processes of monitoring, notification and sanction are not conducive to achieving a vibrant, functional, fair and competitive market for music." The group's members, including Billy Bragg, KT Tunstall, Robbie Williams and Radiohead, said that a consultation paper issued by the U.K. government indicates "a mindset so far removed from that of the general public and music consumer that it seems an extraordinarily negative document."

Microsoft: Word legal foe paints cockeyed tale

Microsoft Corp. called the claim by Canadian developer i4i Inc. that it plotted to drive the company out of business "distorted," and "a breathless tale" that was not supported by the evidence, according to a court documents. But Microsoft also pressed the appeals court for a complete reversal, saying that decisions made by the Texas lower court led "to erroneous verdicts of infringement and validity, and grossly unsupportable damages." Microsoft's response brief saved its most blistering words for i4i, the Toronto-based company that in 2007 said Microsoft illegally used its patented technology to add XML editing, and "custom" XML features, to Word 2003, and later, to Word 2007. "Having little to rebut Microsoft's arguments on the merits, i4i devotes the majority of its brief to a distorted presentation of irrelevant 'evidence'," read Microsoft's brief. "i4i labors mightily to paint Microsoft pejoratively, portraying it as a once-close 'business partner' that supposedly stabbed i4i in the back and 'usurped' i4i's patented invention." Last week, i4i claimed Microsoft marketed the former's XML software to potential customers at the same time it planned to make that software obsolete by building similar features into Microsoft Word using its technology. At the least, Microsoft told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District, it deserves a new trial. "At minimum, a new trial is warranted," the company said in a reply brief filed Monday. Within days of a 2001 meeting between representatives of the two companies, according to an internal e-mail, someone at Microsoft said, "[I]f we do the work properly, there won't be a need for their [i4i's] product," i4i said as it linked the two events.

Microsoft's reply was the latest round in a patent infringement case that started two years ago when i4i accused the software maker of using its technology in Microsoft's popular Word software. That's nothing but a tall tale, Microsoft said. "Unfortunately for i4i, the truth is both comparatively mundane and innocent: After a handful of unfruitful meetings, i4i and Microsoft went their separate ways and Microsoft later released the custom XML functionality for Word that it had told i4i it was developing," the company's lawyers said in the brief. Last May, a Texas jury said Microsoft was guilty of patent infringement, and awarded i4i $200 million in damages. The injunction, said Microsoft, meant it might have to pull Word, and the Office 2003 and Office 2007 suites, off the market for months. In August, U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Davis added more than $90 million in additional damages and interest to Microsoft's bill, then issued an injunction that would have prevented it from selling Word 2003 and Word 2007 as of Oct. 10. Microsoft quickly won a fast-track appeal after warning the three appellate judges that the injunction would create sales chaos for the company and its partners, including Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc., the world's two largest computer makers.

Two weeks ago, the court of appeals suspended the injunction while it hears and decides Microsoft's appeal. But the company's lawyers also disputed claims made by i4i in the brief it submitted Sept. 8, particularly the conclusion that Microsoft had schemed to tout i4i's software on the one hand, and use its technology in Word on the other. "Most of the evidence demonstrates only that i4i attended certain meetings with Microsoft," the company said. "There is absolutely no evidence in this record from which a juror reasonably could infer that Microsoft had knowledge of the contents of the [i4i] patent." Nor should the injunction against selling current versions of Word stand, said Microsoft. "Even assuming that i4i had shown both competition and harm tied to that competition, an injunction is inappropriate because i4i has not shown that whatever harm it has suffered is irreparable and cannot be remedied by money damages," Microsoft stated. "Today's reply brief is an opportunity to reinforce our key assertions in this case," said Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz on Monday. "We believe the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the law in this case [and] we look forward to the September 23 hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals." Kutz's reference was to the oral hearing scheduled for next week, when both parties will present their arguments before the panel of three judges. i4i was unavailable for comment on Microsoft's brief. Most of Microsoft's brief was a recitation of points made last month in its request for an appeal, when it lambasted Davis for his handling of the case and called the verdict a "miscarriage of justice." Microsoft again hit on some of the same points, criticizing Davis' rulings during the trial and arguing that i4i's patent was obvious, and thus not protected.

Linux driver chief calls out Microsoft over code submission

After a kick in the pants from the leader of the Linux driver project, Microsoft has resumed work on its historic driver code submission to the Linux kernel and avoided having the code pulled from the open source operating system. The submission was greeted with astonishment in July when Microsoft made the announcement, which included releasing the code under a GPLv2 license Microsoft had criticized in the past. Microsoft's submission includes 20,000 lines of code that once added to the Linux kernel will provide the hooks for any distribution of Linux to run on Windows Server 2008 and its Hyper-V hypervisor technology. Greg Kroah-Hartman, the Linux driver project lead who accepted the code from Microsoft in July, Wednesday called out Microsoft on the linux-kernel and driver-devel mailing lists saying the company was not actively developing its hv drivers.

If they do not show back up to claim this driver soon, it will be removed in the 2.6.33 [kernel] release. HV refers to Microsoft Hyper-V. He also posted the message to his blog. "Unfortunately the Microsoft developers seem to have disappeared, and no one is answering my emails. So sad...," he wrote. They are not the only company." Also new: Microsoft forms, funds open source foundation Kroah-Hartman said calling out specific projects on the mailing list is a technique he uses all the time to jump start those that are falling behind. Thursday, however, in an interview with Network World, Kroah-Hartman said Microsoft got the message. "They have responded since I posted," he said, and Microsoft is now back at work on the code they pledged to maintain. "This is a normal part of the development process.

In all, Kroah-Hartman specifically mentioned 25 driver projects that were not being actively developed and faced being dropped from the main kernel release 2.6.33, which is due in March. On top of chiding Microsoft for not keeping up with code development, Kroah-Hartman took the company to task for the state of its original code submission. "Over 200 patches make up the massive cleanup effort needed to just get this code into a semi-sane kernel coding style (someone owes me a big bottle of rum for that work!)," he wrote. He said the driver project was not a "dumping ground for dead code." However, the nearly 40 projects Kroah-Hartman detailed in his mailing list submission, including the Microsoft drivers, will all be included in the 2.6.32 main kernel release slated for December. Kroah-Hartman says there are coding style guidelines and that Microsoft's code did not match those. "That's normal and not a big deal. But the large number of patches did turn out to be quite a bit of work, he noted.

It happens with a lot of companies," he said. He said Thursday that Microsoft still has not contributed any patches around the drivers. "They say they are going to contribute, but all they have submitted is changes to update the to-do list." Kroah-Hartman says he has seen this all before and seemed to chalk it up to the ebbs and flows of the development process. The submission was greeted with astonishment in July when Microsoft made the announcement, which included releasing the code under a GPLv2 license Microsoft had criticized in the past. Microsoft's submission includes 20,000 lines of code that once added to the Linux kernel will provide the hooks for any distribution of Linux to run on Windows Server 2008 and its Hyper-V hypervisor technology. Follow John on Twitter