Alice Ruling Not Enough to Stop Patent Trolls

This post originally appeared in Roll Call.

The House and Senate bills were both carefully crafted to shift the playing field just a bit — to make it easier for small companies and individuals to defend themselves against patent threats while holding patent holders accountable for the lawsuits they file. Despite loud complaints from the traditional patent holder community, the bills’ provisions were actually quite modest, such as a requirement that patent holders set forth the basic framework of their case — who owns the patent, what product allegedly infringes the patent, and what parts of the patent are at issue. Or reasonable limits on discovery, usually litigation’s most burdensome and expensive phase that hits an operating company much harder than a non-practicing entity who has little to no information about its so-called business practice to share.

To be honest, I didn’t think the proposed legislation went far enough. But it represented an important compromise to fix a very serious problem.

Perhaps, most importantly, there was nothing in either bill that would prohibit a patent holder with a strong patent and a legitimate claim of infringement from bringing a lawsuit. Ownership of a patent alone should not be a blank check to, as President Obama said, extort money out of an operating company. This is not to say that patents do not have a place in today’s economy or to condone infringement. It is to say, however, that the current system is skewed way too heavily in favor of patent owners and this has to change.

We will only see this change through legislation. Strong champions of real patent reform — President Barack Obama, Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va. — know this. So do the countless victims of patent trolls. Which is why the prospects for reform look especially good in the 114th Congress. It can’t come soon enough.

President Obama Reiterates Support for Strong Net Neutrality

Yesterday, President Barack Obama unequivocally stated his support for real net neutrality, putting to rest any doubts about where he stands on the issue, emphatically opposing any rules that would allow ISPs to enter into paid prioritization agreements and create fast and slow lanes on the Internet:

"I know that one of the things people are most concerned about is paid prioritization, the notion that somehow some folks can pay a little more money and get better service, more exclusive access to customers through the Internet: that is something I’m opposed to," Obama said.

The President’s latest comments come as the FCC begins the process of sorting through the 3.7 million comments filed in response to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposed rules to replace the Commission’s Open Internet Order that was vacated by a court ruling in January. President Obama’s position is consistent with the vast majority of those commenters, over 99% of whom want the FCC to institute strong net neutrality rules.

This is not the first time the President has publicly supported net neutrality. As recently as this summer, he trumpeted the importance of an open Internet. Yet the President’s strong words yesterday left no room for doubt: it is clear the Administration supports Title II reclassification.

Which is why, in opposing Internet regulations that would permit companies to pay ISPs for priority access, President Obama voiced his opposition to the FCC Chairman’s proposed net neutrality rules. Under the Chairman’s proposal, the FCC would permit any paid prioritization deals that were “commercially reasonable.” While it is entirely unclear what “commercially reasonable” paid prioritization deals would entail (one of many major problems with the proposal), the Court of Appeals that vacated the FCC’s prior rules made clear that, unless the FCC reclassifies broadband under Title II, any new rules will have to permit paid prioritization. If, as the President said, he wishes the FCC to refrain from promulgating rules “creating two or three or four tiers of Internet,” the FCC must act in accordance with the overwhelming tide of public opinion and reclassify broadband as a common carrier service under TItle II. Having the President reiterate his strong commitment to net neutrality rules should remind the FCC of the importance of its decision and the widespread desire for meaningful rules preventing ISP discrimination.

Engine's Response to Today's FCC Hearing on Net Neutrality Economics

We at Engine watched with interest as the FCC held a hearing today on economic questions related to its proposed net neutrality rules, focusing on “incentives to provide high quality open Internet access service and the relevance of market power.” Distressingly, though the hearing tackled many important questions about the economic incentives new rules would affect, relatively little time was spent addressing the immense negative impact on investment in startups that would follow from an abandonment of strong net neutrality rules. Too many witnesses—with Professor Nicholas Economides of NYU and Professor Jonathan Baker of American University as notable exceptions—failed to grasp the chilling effect on innovation that the paid prioritization model would cause.

Contrary to Hal Singer from the Progressive Policy Institute’s stunning claim at the hearing that allowing paid prioritization schemes would have no negative impact on companies that could not afford to pay for priority access unless ISPs actively degraded all non-prioritized traffic in absolute terms, paid prioritization unquestionably harms startups. Even with a so-called “baseline” service requirement, startups will be disadvantaged if their Internet speeds drop relative to established companies. Myriad studies show that consumers respond to even the most minute changes in website speeds. Millisecond differences in loading times can be a huge detriment to a startup’s growing business.

Simply put, allowing paid prioritization would greatly increase the cost of application development. In turn, higher costs would discourage entrepreneurs from starting risky companies and dissuade investors from putting money into startups that operate in such an imbalanced marketplace where wealthier incumbents pay for priority access.

The threat to innovation isn’t hypothetical. More than 100 of the world’s most prominent venture capitalists explicitly said in a letter to the FCC that they would be less likely to invest in startups that compete in established markets if the FCC permitted paid prioritization. If the FCC fails to understand that allowing ISPs to create and profit from Internet slow lanes will necessarily disincentivize investment in the next wave of startups, it will be putting the future of these companies and the Internet economy in grave danger.

It's Time to Talk Net Neutrality for Mobile

Last week, two of the FCC’s five commissioners came to Sacramento for a public hearing on the future of net neutrality regulation. While most of the debate regarding the FCC’s proposed rules issued earlier this year centered on how and if the Commission should implement net neutrality rules, the Sacramento hearing—organized by California Congresswoman Doris Matsui, a vocal proponent of net neutrality rules—took a step back from arguments over Title II vs. Section 706 (the main legal debate surrounding net neutrality) to think about the broader policy goals that the FCC should focus on in deciding on rules to replace the now-vacated Open Internet Order, regardless of what regulatory mechanism they decide to use.

We praise Rep. Matsui and the commissioners who joined her. Considering how important net neutrality is to citizens and businesses throughout the country, it’s necessary that policymakers tasked with charting a path for the future of the open Internet take the time to discuss these issues with people outside of the Beltway who will be impacted by the FCC’s decision.

In her opening remarks, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn addressed a key net neutrality issue—one that has received short shrift in the debate thus far: the need for net neutrality regulations that apply to wireless Internet service. Under the 2010 Open Internet Order that was vacated in January by the D.C. Circuit Court, the FCC’s rules against ISP blocking and discrimination applied only to wired Internet service, leaving wireless Internet service outside the scope of the rules. While, as Commissioner Clyburn correctly noted, non-neutral wireless broadband presents significant problems for low-income Americans and communities of color (many of whom rely exclusively on wireless broadband for access to the Internet), the lack of any net neutrality rules impacting wireless threatens every community of Internet users, especially the startup community, much of which heavily relies on wireless to connect to new customers and users.

In 2010, when the FCC issued its Open Internet Order, the FCC decided not to apply to wireless carriers the full anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules it created to regulate wired broadband. The FCC justified this action on the grounds that the mobile broadband industry was still rather young in 2010; there was more competition amongst mobile carriers than their wireline counterparts; and operational constraints on mobile networks necessitated a more lenient notion of “reasonable network management” practices. These arguments were weak in 2010, and as the mobile broadband marketplace has changed, the FCC’s logic for exempting mobile from its net neutrality rules makes even less sense today.

As Commissioner Clyburn noted, the mobile broadband market has grown significantly in recent years, with LTE deployed to more than 120 million subscribers today, up from just 200,000 when the Commission issued its 2010 order. Not surprisingly, this increased mobile access has spurred a tremendous boom in the mobile application market. The global market for mobile apps and advertising was worth $38 billion in 2013, up from about $6.8 billion in 2010.

Some may point to these encouraging figures and conclude that there is no need for net neutrality rules in the mobile space. But, part of the reason the application market has boomed so much is because mobile ISPs have not yet engaged in widespread discriminatory activity—a norm that is beginning to change. Recently, mobile carriers have been entering into deals with some edge providers whereby use of these edge providers’ services does not count against a consumer’s data caps. While this may look like a great deal to consumers who are finding themselves being pushed into capped data plans, it will have the same crippling effect on startups that the creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet would. Upstart companies will find it difficult or impossible to compete with large incumbent applications that consumers can use without incurring data charges, discouraging entrepreneurs from entering the market and investors from funding new application startups. Consumers may initially like having low cost access to popular apps, but consumer popularity alone isn’t synonymous with sound policy. Consumers also probably like the low prices a monopolist can charge to undercut new entrants and stave off competition, but permitting monopolistic behavior will ultimately ruin markets and consumer choice, threatening—as President Obama said—“the next Google and the next Facebook.”

Whether the FCC goes forward with its currently proposed ill-advised “net neutrality” regulations or uses Title II to enact meaningful non-discrimination rules, it must apply such rules equally to wired and wireless service. Failure to enact rules governing mobile broadband carrier discrimination—including zero-rating schemes—will stifle the booming market for mobile applications and allow mobile carriers to serve as gatekeepers for the millions of Americans who rely on wireless Internet access.

Startups Head to Washington to Petition for Net Neutrality

After a week that saw a nationwide day of action prompt more than 300,000 phone calls to Congress regarding net neutrality and more than 3 million comments filed with the FCC in response to the Chairman’s problematic net neutrality rules, startups from around the country came to Washington to make the case for meaningful net neutrality rules in person. With all the attention paid to net neutrality in recent days, we had to make sure that voices from the startup community—including and especially the small businesses who need an open Internet—were being heard in the debate. Representatives from Etsy, Imgur, Meetup, Kickstarter, General Assembly, Dwolla, Vimeo, and Distinc.tt spent the day on September 17 meeting with key lawmakers and officials, explaining to policymakers why an open Internet is so important to their businesses and why the FCC needs to protect the innovative landscape of the Internet by enacting real net neutrality rules.

The startups began the day with a meeting at the White House, discussing their concerns about the Chairman’s proposed rules with key members of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, including an appearance from newly-named CTO Megan Smith and Deputy CTO Alex Macgillivray.

While the President has already publicly expressed support for net neutrality rules that prevent ISPs from creating fast and slow lanes, the startups made clear to the White House that such rules are only possible through Title II reclassification. Having the President publicly support strong net neutrality rules earlier this summer was an encouraging development, and we are hopeful that the President will continue to pressure the FCC to make the correct decision on Title II reclassification.

The startups next made their way to the Capitol, where they participated in a press conference with Sen. Ed Markey—one of the most prominent and longstanding supporters of Title II reclassification—to further educate the public on the importance of the FCC’s decision. Sen. Markey was joined by Kickstarter’s Michal Rosenn, Dwolla’s Jordan Lampe, and Vimeo’s Michael Chea, each of whom eloquently made the case for Title II reclassification as the only way to preserve an open Internet for future innovators. The afternoon was spent in meetings with key members of Congress and staff, including representatives from both parties’ telecom subcommittees, net neutrality supporters like Sen. Markey and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, along with members like Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Joe Crowley.

The eventful day was capped with a meeting with Leader Pelosi, who—in between coordinating her delegation’s voting on significant foreign policy issues—sat down with us to discuss her strong support of net neutrality. Her recent letter in support of Title II reclassification showed her willingness to stand up to the powerful cable company lobby and do the right thing to keep the Internet open and competitive for startups in her district and throughout the country.

We are incredibly grateful to the participating startups for taking the time out of running their businesses to let Washington know that, despite not having an army of lobbyists constantly campaigning on their behalf like the ISPs, startups throughout the country are committed to doing what it takes to ensure the FCC enacts meaningful net neutrality rules.  

Dream Deferred: President Obama Delays Further Action on Immigration

As the 114th Congress hurtles toward the finish line of the November elections, we have watched--with great disappointment--the failure to fix the immigration issues plaguing our economy. Despite Congressional intransigence on the issue, it appeared earlier this summer that President Obama was planning to step into the void and take sweeping executive actions to address the growing crisis of our nation’s broken immigration system. Alas, we can now chalk up further inaction as, best case, another election year casualty; worst case, failure at all levels of government to fix a broken immigration system.

Earlier this week, the Obama Administration quietly deferred further action until after the November elections, apparently in an attempt to shore up politically vulnerable members of their party in hotly-contested seats. In so doing, they have left the millions of families already ravaged by government inaction in further limbo. Once again, they lessened our ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace by still failing to keep the gifted immigrant thinkers and doers--trained in our schools--here building companies.

It would be easy to write this off cynically given the electoral climate for the President and his party, but we must make this an opportunity to ask the Administration to do more, to live up to its commitments and to not sit idly by while families struggle with their status and businesses flounder without talent to drive their goals. Simply put, we can’t wait and wonder when inaction will turn to action, and we must resolve to send a message in this election season that delay won’t cut it.

As candidates return home this month and engage in their reelection campaigns in earnest, find them at the town hall, in the supermarket, when they visit your startup, wherever it may be, and ask them: how much longer we have to wait for them and the Administration to lead? Because we have waited too long already, and it is time for this President and this Congress to put people and opportunity ahead of politics and party and pass common sense immigration reform now.

What We Can Learn from Rockport: On Fiber Networks and Our Economic Future

If you’re anything like me, you don’t exactly have an abundance of choice in broadband providers. In virtually every market in America, your options are limited to the local cable monopoly or the local telephone monopoly (and if we’re being realistic on what speeds are sufficiently fast to be considered “broadband,” you’re really stuck with cable). Economically, this dearth of choice comes as no surprise. High upfront investment costs make it incredibly difficult for competitors to unseat the incumbent provider, leaving that provider with the market power to charge high rates for relatively slow speeds.

Broadband markets simply aren’t competitive, and this lack of competition has caused the US to fall behind other industrialized nations in access to ultra-fast technologies like fiber, which provides symmetrical upload and download speeds many times beyond what cable can offer. Because it’s expensive to build fiber networks, and because your local broadband provider is likely the only game in town, ISPs have been reluctant to invest in fiber networks. Fiber options remain distressingly rare in America, accounting for only 8.16% of broadband connections, well behind other industrialized nations with robust tech sectors. Worse, we don’t seem to be in any hurry to catch up, as fiber connections grew only 12% in the US from 2012-2013, again lagging behind other industrialized nations.

Here’s the good news: in the absence of ISP fiber offerings, some municipalities are taking action to bring fiber to their citizens themselves. Today, Rockport, Maine, with the support of Sen. Angus King, a vocal champion of Internet access policies, launched a municipal fiber network with gigabit per second connections. That means Rockport citizens—in a town a of 3,300—can get download speeds almost 35 times faster than what I have access to in San Francisco, the supposed heart of the tech world. In doing so, Rockport joins cities like Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has positioned itself as an emerging tech hub by installing a gigabit fiber network in 2010. Chattanooga’s fiber network has already proven attractive to businesses, with 5,000 business subscribers and an emerging startup community. Companies like Claris Networks are moving operations to Chattanooga to take advantage of the municipal network, which provides equally fast upload speeds crucial to business success.

Municipal broadband networks provide consumers with alternatives in markets desperately in need of competition. Not surprisingly, monopoly incumbent ISPs have fought hard to block municipal broadband networks, helping pass laws in 20 states preventing communities from building their own broadband networks. The telecom lobby has also worked to prevent municipalities from operating or leasing fiber networks that have already been built but lay dormant. These laws have prevented Chattanooga from expanding its fiber network, and the city filed a petition with the FCC, asking the agency to step in and preempt these anti-competitive restrictions.

Access to ultra-high-speed Internet is quickly becoming necessary for business success, and as the US continues to lag behind peer countries in fiber access, startups will soon face significant competitive disadvantages without greater access. Since telecom incumbents have been unable or unwilling to provide fiber access, towns like Rockport have stepped in to create needed competition and provide fiber to its citizens.

If we hope to stay competitive in the world economy, we need to make sure that citizens and businesses have adequate broadband access, whether through private or municipal networks. To achieve that, we need to ensure that Rockport, Chattanooga, and other forward-thinking municipalities investing in connectivity become the trend, not the exceptions, in the marketplace.

Copyright Damages: A Capricious System That Stifles Innovation

The last time Congress enacted significant new copyright legislation, only about one quarter of U.S. households had Internet access. It’s not surprising, then, that the current copyright regime isn’t exactly suited to our digital age. Copyright law is meant to provide incentives for creators and innovators. This principle is in the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” In other words, we give creators limited monopolies over their works—patents and copyrights—in order to encourage them to create.  

Lately, however, this concept has started to backfire. Laws meant to foster innovation have in fact discouraged technological innovation by imposing the threat of ruinous financial penalties on entrepreneurs for engaging in perfectly legal activities that lawmakers couldn’t have envisioned when drafting the Copyright Act.

Copyright law can be confusing, particularly because many of the ways we create and share content today didn’t exist in the 1960s and ’70s, when Congress wrote most of the current Copyright Act. But, one aspect of the law is clear: a court may levy damages of up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement. This means that you could be on the hook for $150,000 for illegally downloading a single song, or for reusing or repurposing content in a manner that you believed was totally legal—until you found out it wasn’t.

The uncertainty resulting from this huge potential liability touches innovators of all kinds, not just traditional content creators. If you’re a startup and host any third-party content, you could find yourself unwittingly facing the threat of outrageous damages. Even if what you’re doing is legal, just starting your business may not be worth the risk.

Recognizing the need to reform copyright law to better protect the new types of creativity that technological changes have allowed, Congress held several hearings in recent weeks evaluating different aspects of the copyright regime, from term lengths to music licensing to the first sale doctrine. Most recently, and perhaps most importantly, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss possible changes to the nature and scope of the remedies available in copyright infringement actions.

Under virtually all U.S. laws, plaintiffs can only collect money from defendants to the extent that they were actually injured by the illegal activities. Copyright law, however, is different: plaintiffs don’t have to show any economic injury from infringement whatsoever in order to collect money from defendants. Instead, a copyright plaintiff can ask the court to award a fixed amount of money—between $200 to $150,000 per work infringed—whether or not the plaintiff was actually harmed. Juries have significant discretion to award damages within this range, and, as juries are wont to do, they often issue awards that are wildly unpredictable and many times larger than the plaintiff’s actual injury.

While it’s certainly important to deter blatantly infringing conduct, the chilling effects of these large statutory damages have unintended consequences. Copyright law doesn’t have a lot of bright lines separating conduct that is infringing from conduct that isn’t; this flexibility is necessary to ensure that new, beneficial modes of creative expression aren’t outlawed under statutes that couldn’t predict future innovations. This, of course, means that it’s often difficult for innovators to know with certainty whether their conduct is infringing or not, and the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for failing to accurately predict what a judge or jury will say will necessarily deter a lot of non-infringing conduct.

For example, the rules surrounding liability for companies that provide content distribution services (e.g. BitTorrent, YouTube, etc.) are decidedly unclear. The law does provide “safe harbors” for content intermediaries, but those harbors are hardly safe if, like YouTube, you have to spend seven years and untold millions in court to determine whether you’ve qualified. The risk of a high statutory damages award, even if it is unlikely that any infringement has occurred, can be enough to discourage entrepreneurs and investors from entering the market.

The disincentivizing effect of massive statutory damages awards isn’t limited to startups hosting third-party content. The rules regulating software copyrights are incredibly confusing, even for copyright experts. Considering so much software development revolves around building off preexisting code, uncertain copyright liability is a risk for virtually any entrepreneur who wants to innovate by transforming existing code. In the wake of the Oracle v. Google ruling, using simple APIs to ensure interoperability raises the risk of huge statutory damages liability, even if the use of such APIs causes no damage at all.

The existing statutory damages framework seems to have lost sight of the ultimate purpose of all copyright laws: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”—essentially, to promote innovation. When considering changes to the Copyright Act, Congress must reconsider the statutory damages framework to make sure that discouraging infringement doesn’t also discourage innovation by subjecting entrepreneurs to undue risk from the threat of irrational statutory damages awards.

Thanks, President Obama: President Speaks Out Against Slow Lanes

The latest politician to add his voice to the growing coalition supporting Title II reclassification and strong net neutrality rules is none other than U.S. President Barack Obama. The President, in remarks given at this week’s U.S.-Africa Summit in Washington, made a strong statement in favor of real net neutrality, saying, “I personally, the position of my administration, as well as a lot of the companies here, is that you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.”

Here’s the thing: the only way to ensure there is no “differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users” is to reclassify the Internet as a “common carrier” under Title II. The crux of the current debate surrounds under what legal authority the FCC can protect an open Internet, one without paid prioritization and fast lanes. The FCC Chairman, in public statements, has signaled his intent to work under the current legal structure--called Section 706--but, simply, the law will not allow that.

The D.C. Appellate Court has made it abundantly clear that the FCC must reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service” under Title II if it wants to ban the type of behavior President Obama spoke out against.  According to that Court, the FCC’s prior rules preventing ISPs from discriminating against or blocking access to disfavored companies were “per se common carrier obligations,” and only services subject to Title II can be treated as common carriers. Quite simple, in fact.

Which is why the President’s statements are so important. It’s now clear that the President must support reclassification. And those comments came at a particularly important time. As you likely know, the FCC, and its Chairman, Tom Wheeler, are currently evaluating a number of proposals dedicated to protecting the Internet, and keeping it free for innovation.

In making his comments, President Obama joins with hundreds of our country’s leading startup companies, Fortune 500 corporations, technologists, advocacy organizations, Internet users and supporters across the world in calling for the Internet to be reclassified under Title II. We look forward to continuing our work with the Administration to protect and “leave open” the Internet to ensure that all startups, especially the “next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.”

The Drumbeat Continues: More Startups Call for Title II Reclassification

Today, 10 more startup companies across the United States called on the FCC to reclassify the Internet and keep it free and open for innovation. While Congress has gone home for the August Recess, the process on Internet rulemaking continues at the FCC, where startup companies continue to make their voices heard. The companies, which represent a broad swath of growing businesses all across the country, once again focused on the only real choice available for Chairman Wheeler to preserve the ability for these companies to hatch, grow, and scale in the marketplace, and that is reclassification under Title II.

Take, for example, the story of San Francisco-based microfinance startup LendUp. Their story, according to co-founder Sasha Orloff in the filing, is only possible because the rules governing the Internet allowed for free and fair competition. As Orloff writes, “Competition within this industry is fierce and, if we were founded under the rules laid down in the Chairman’s proposal, our initial cost projections could have proven prohibitive. We would have needed to pay a substantial premium in order to ensure customers could find and access us within a crowded marketplace.” Instead, LendUp is now able to provide financial assistance to people in need, while also educating their customers about the positive benefits of responsible financial behavior, all because of technology they could build on an open Internet.

We get a bit of a global influence in this batch of comments as well, because despite Europe’s having recently fought -- and won -- its’ own battle for Net Neutrality, the FCC’s proposal could have deleterious effects on global companies doing business in the United States. Publitas, an Amsterdam-based company working to optimize and present digital content in the retail space, writes that not only would the company never have been gotten off the ground in the world envisioned by the current proposal, their future is under threat as well. U.S. influence on the Internet has global reach, and because of that, Publitas Founder and CEO Guillermo Sanchez warns that “[i]f the FCC had enacted policies which infringed upon net neutrality, the Netherlands might have enacted similar ones” which would have put the original idea under threat. But also, with a “data intensive” business like Publitas, “our business would be seriously hobbled if we were in a slow lane.”

The current proposal could also have negative influences on new marketplaces, writes Shapeways, a New York-based leading marketplace for 3D Printing images and blueprints. They are responsible for 18,000 Shapeways shops already, and with 3D Printing continuing its massive growth curve, the market they empower is continuing to foment further entrepreneurial gains in the economy on the whole. But that future is uncertain because of the proposal which Shapeways says, undermines “the great equalizer.” Everyone has the same access, anyone can float their own “crazy idea.” By creating two-tier access, you sacrifice this core tenet, throttle the spirit of freedom, and ultimately kill the power of wild innovation this nation is founded upon.” They lay out their proposed solution plainly, asking the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility, “which it is.”

These comments and more are available on our site, and we have again extracted multiple key quotes below. For more like this, sign up at startupsfornetneutrality.org and our work to reclassify the Internet continues over the course of the summer, we’ll keep you updated with all the news and views you need to help support a better proposal and a solution that keeps the Internet free and open for innovation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Distinc.tt

We currently spend considerable resources ensuring that our users can quickly access the content that they need. They view high-resolution photos of restaurants, events, and people; as well as geolocation data to help with coordination. They find out what places around them are most popular and who is currently there. These tools help LGBT people stay connected and maintain a sense of community in this rapidly changing environment. As you can imagine, the amount of bandwidth that this takes up is exponentially related to our growth and success. Having to negotiate with ISPs for the same access that our competitors would enjoy is simply not an option at our stage as a startup, we neither have the time nor the money.

Badger Maps, Inc.

There are a lot of costs to starting a business, and investors and venture capitalists are only interested in funding certain types of businesses. An entrepreneur needs to pay peoples' salaries, pay for servers, buy software, pay for space to house workers, buy Ramen and peanut butter, etc. So by adding another cost — paying off Internet service providers, to keep them from putting a gun to companies’ heads — you will get less innovation in the American economy.

LendUp

Beyond competition, core aspects of our business depend on Internet speed and efficiency. From underwriting to transaction processing, we rely on large amounts of data flowing quickly to meet customer needs and ensure accuracy and security. Speed also enables our value proposition as no customer is going to sit through a credit education video that takes too long to load. Again, with competition so intense and the alternative lenders so lacking our benefits, the consequences of a borrower abandoning us for a less compliant lender that could pay more for bandwidth are high. Furthermore, as investors evaluated the potential of our business, if these would-be risks had been a reality, I am confident conversations would have been different.

Linear Air

I am a serial networking entrepreneur and inventor.  I have four Internet patents, and prior to Linear Air, I spent a decade as the CTO of a networking company (Ipanema Technologies) whose product was designed to guarantee good performance across the Internet. That makes me, as it happens, one of the world’s foremost technical experts on Internet performance, the matter at the heart of this proposal, and I can state definitively that the only way to create a “fast lane” on the Internet is to slow everything else down. Anyone who claims differently is either mistaken, or lying.

MobileWorks

We need strong network neutrality rules that keep the Internet as a level playing field. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler should not preside over the transformation of the Internet from a level playing field that has been the greatest engine of innovation and growth the world has ever seen to being a discriminatory, heavily tolled platform controlled by an largely uncompetitive ISP industry. The Chairman’s proposal would allow ISPs to create new barriers to innovation that would harm startups like ours—and all those who may benefit for our services. It harms consumer choice, entrepreneurship, and will kill jobs.

Publitas

We need the protection of bright-line rules. We cannot make do with the FCC’s vague commercial reasonableness standard. We have no telecommunications lawyers on staff; big ISPs have hundreds at their disposal. We simply don’t have the resources to fight a legal battle on the basis of presumptions. We urge the FCC to enact bright-line rules which prohibit blocking, technical discrimination, paid prioritization, and access fees, applicable to both fixed and mobile connections, and to reclassify broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act.

RebelMouse

The FCC’s proposal will parch the Internet ecosystem, constricting our revenues. It will also force us to pay whatever we must to put ourselves in the fast lane, and to negotiate individual deals with multiple ISPs. That is time and money that we could have spent on hiring, innovation, and growth. We also face the threat of exclusive deals, hammered out between our competitors and ISPs, giving them and them alone the right to a fast lane. We could not afford to purchase such a right, which undoubtedly would be very expensive. If any of our competitors bought the exclusive right to a fast lane, we might have to go out of business.

Shapeways

Over the past twenty years, American innovators have created countless Internet-based applications, content offerings, and services that are used around the world. These innovations have created enormous value for Internet users, fueled economic growth, and made our Internet companies global leaders. This innovation happened in a world without discrimination. An open Internet has also been a platform for free speech and opportunity for billions of users. Shapeways would not have come to life without the Internet, and the FCC’s proposal threatens our future to provide an open platform for independent businesses to flourish, even those with an inventory of one product. The proposal will further harm competition by quelling innovation among small businesses in all sectors by creating financial barriers to entry.

Fred Trotter

The Digital Divide is getting narrower but steeper, there are fewer on the ‘wrong’ side but life is getting worse and worse for those few. Our country is betting on digital health interventions working to rescue our economy but this model relies on consistent connectivity between consumer grade doctor ISP connections and consumer grade patient ISP connections. If we allow for the creation of Internet “fast lanes” we will force at least some patients and doctors into the slow lane. This will deepen the Digital Divide and significantly damage the healthcare reform efforts that are designed to rescue our country’s economy.

Poll Everywhere

Many of the concerns we would have had at our founding remain problematic today. We still run on a tight budget, and we’re not sure whether we could afford to put ourselves in a fast lane. Even if we could, that would only mean diverting money away from hiring and growth.

Meanwhile, we are terrified by the threat of an exclusive deal, forged between ISPs and a giant producer of clickers. We certainly could not afford such a deal, which would come at a great cost. If that deal forced us to the slow lane, it would be hard for us to draw in new users. We might even lose our current ones, frustrated as they would be with our slow and patchy service.

RFP-IT: Making It Easier for Government to Support Startups

Our Federal Government spends a lot of money. I mean, a lot of money. And with that money, they purchase many goods and services. Increasingly, many of those purchases have intersected with technology: technology that makes existing products more efficient, solutions for new and existing problems, new infrastructure to help the government manage its processes, and so on. In fact, the government buys so much stuff, whole industries (yes, plural) have been built with the singular goal of selling to the government. While these processes and industries are largely pretty boring, every once in a while something happens, the system stops functioning properly, and it becomes news.

That is exactly what happened with the mangled rollout of the much-maligned healthcare.gov website late last year.

Among the many problems uncovered by the process, we realized that those systems in place to spend the aforementioned sums of money are not always best at finding the most efficient projects, programs, and services to buy. In fact, healthcare.gov was just latest high-profile example of the problem. Many, if not most, of the issues faced in federal government procurement are situated squarely in the fact that these laws and regulations represent a different time, and have been made archaic by advances in technology.

Stepping into that breach with an innovative solution of her own is Silicon Valley’s own representative, Anna G. Eshoo. The Democratic Congresswoman, a longtime supporter of the technologies that lead the world from her home district, today introduced the Reforming Federal Procurement of Information Technology (or, RFP-IT) Act which seeks to make these processes more open, easier to navigate, and more accessible to startup companies looking to sell to the Federal Government.

The bill, co-sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of Rep. Eshoo’s House colleagues, has three specific goals. First, it will enhance competition in the marketplace by enabling more small businesses to bid on federal IT contracts without having to spend thousands on compliance costs by lifting the threshold for a streamlined contracting process from $150,000 to $500,000. According to Eshoo’s summary of the bill, “expanding the use of simplified acquisition procedures will shorten procurement lead times and help level the playing field for start-ups and small businesses – a critical factor in an IT marketplace that is characterized by the constant influx of new entrants and rapidly evolving IT products and services.”

Second, the bill takes a number of steps to promote innovation, including codifying the popular Presidential Innovation Fellows program, and asking the General Services Administration to recommend how to slim-down certain procedures.

Finally, the bill moves to ensure more accountability by establishing a Digital Government Office within the Office of Management and Budget, strengthening the existing CIO office in the White House and improving transparency and oversight.

You can read the full text of the (very short!) bill here. We thank Rep. Eshoo and her colleagues for highlighting one of the ways our government functions, and working to bring more efficiency and innovation into the process.

ECPA Pushes Past 235 Co-Sponsors

For the last few months, we’ve closely watched the progress of a bill in Congress seeking to reform and update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. We’ve discussed the current law’s outdated regulations of our communications infrastructure, but a piece of that could be updated very quickly through Kansas Congressman Kevin Yoder and Colorado Congressman Jared Polis’ Email Privacy Act. Essentially, as we’ve noted before, law enforcement currently doesn’t currently need a warrant to read your email--leaving many startups in the unenviable position of not being able to protect their customers. We think this is wrong, and it turns out a bunch of our elected representatives agree.

Less than a month ago, we noted that the bill had reached 218 co-sponsors, fully half of the House of Representatives, and which, let’s face it, is a monumental achievement with such a divided Congress, and a testament to ECPA reform’s popularity. With this week’s announcement that six more Republican co-sponsors are signing on, that number has now ballooned to 235 and is threatening to climb even higher.

Even as we creep closer and closer to mid-term elections, there are certain things Congress can still do while it’s in session. The Email Privacy Act, which would drastically enhance both privacy and security for Internet users and bring our laws into the 21st Century, is a great example of the “art of the possible” and we encourage the House to listen to itself and pass this much-needed reform swiftly.

Net Neutrality Comments Crash FCC Website: Keep The Pressure On

Back in May, we sent a letter to the FCC signed by over 150 startups supporting net neutrality. Since then, we have thought a lot about the dangerous uncertainty the lack of real net neutrality will cause, and the FCC has received nearly 700,000 comments and counting on the subject -- including some from education startups, software companies, reddit, and Internet giants. In fact, so many people are filing today that the system crashed, prompting organizations (us included!) to file by hand, and forcing the FCC to extend today’s deadline to midnight (eastern time) on Friday.

This is great, because we have to keep the pressure on Chairman Tom Wheeler to make sure he does the right thing, and issues a strong, sensible rule that preserves the open Internet. If you still want to file comments, you can do so here.

There is still a strong wave of opposition from individuals and groups committed to letting telecommunications companies build fast lanes on the Internet for those who can pay. And unfortunately, those telecommunications companies, and their supporters, have targeted the U.S. Congress, and now we are anticipating amendments to the Appropriations bill currently being debated in the House. The Latta bill, for example, would gut the FCC’s ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility, and other similar telecom-favoring legislation like prohibiting communities from building their own broadband networks.

You can help preserve an open Internet by letting your representative in Congress know that any such bill is unacceptable. Our friends at Free Press have set up a call tool to contact your member of Congress today. It is especially important that Democratic members who have generally (though not entirely) been supportive of our goals stand strong against these tactics.

You can make that call here.

And if you can’t call, think about sending out a tweet. Here are some examples:

Stand up for an open Internet. Say no to a bill that would stop the FCC from issuing real #NetNeutrality rules! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Startups need an open Internet. Say no to the Latta amendment and stand up for #NetNeutrality! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

#NetNeutrality supporters in Congress, please make your voices heard and say no to the Latta amendment. Preserve the open Internet!

It’s time for the telcos to stop messing with #NetNeutrality. Call Congress and tell them to stand up for innovation http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Finally, if you haven’t already done so, please sign up with http://www.startupsfornetneutrality.org/ to show your support and join the movement for an free and open Internet.

More Companies Comment on Net Neutrality

In our continuing series of filings with the FCC and their open docket on Net Neutrality rules, we have a series of comments this week from a broad range of companies and organizations, again focusing on one critical viewpoint: that the Chairman of the FCC has within his power the ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II, and that he should do so. From the web, Opera Software is one of the world’s leading web browsers with more than 350 million users worldwide, and comments have been written by Chief Technology Officer Haakon Wium Lie from their head office in Oslo, Norway in support of reclassification with a global perspective. 

Opera Software services many users in sub-optimal situations, mostly those with poor connectivity or lower-end devices, which is first among many reasons that in a marketplace designed for ease of switching with only marginal cost, speed is a key factor in retaining consumers. And with one of Opera Software’s key differentiators being their proprietary compression service, Lie points out they would “have to” secure fast lane agreements under the Chairman’s proposal in order to stay effective for their users. In a sense, Opera Software provides a service on the margin for those on the margins of our society, and the reason they do so is that the Internet is the great equalizer. Even those without the latest and most powerful devices, or the best connectivity and bandwidth, can still explore the vast recesses of information and connect with people around the globe.

And, as Lie points out, if other countries copy the FCC’s current proposal, we run the risk of continuing to chip away, not just at the innovative Internet which has brought us so many products and services to enrich our life, but the very fabric of the community built online by restricting access to those who may not be able to afford to connect. In that “undue bureaucratic burden” says Lie, we find the greatest cause for alarm, all of which can be averted, in his words, by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We also hear from organizations in the global health space, including the Global Healthy Living Foundation, which creates disease-specific communities and networks to help many facing chronic illness get the support they need. And from the interactive world, Heyzap and TouchCast create new experiences online. Without rules that keep the Internet open for innovation, their businesses won’t reach their users.

In all of these cases, especially in the delivery of high-bandwidth content like YouTube videos or other interactive devices, user experience could be hamstrung to the point of dysfunction without clear rules keeping the Internet open for innovation. “If we aren’t in a fast lane, by definition we are in a slow lane,” says GHLF. According to Heyzap, “If we had pay a special fee to each phone company to get the same treatment as our competitors, we would have to slow our growth and our hiring,” and that even if litigation under commercial reasonableness standard were available, it wouldn’t help them with ISPs. And TouchCast points out, “When someone views a TouchCast, they not only stream video, but also download web pages and data from the Internet all at the same time. Any perceived delays in video streaming rates or the presentation of any other information within a TouchCast would result in high consumer abandonment rates.”

We have links to the full comments comments and some key quotes below. If, like any of these organizations, your business and customers will be adversely affected by the Chairman’s proposal, sign up with us at startupsfornetneutrality.org. And if you can file a comment, let us know at comms@engine.is.

---

Opera Software

“In the hyper-competitive market for web browsers, speed is key. Consumers will switch browsers to experience the web marginally. Competition would suffer if some browser vendors have fast lane arrangements, or if the non-fast lanes do not provide sufficient capacity. Under the Chairman’s proposal, in order to have a viable web compression service, we would have to secure agreements for a fast lane. “

“Our worst-case scenario is that other countries copy FCC’s proposal. The United States is not only influential with new technological innovations, but also Internet policy. Opera Software would never be able to provide web companies, including U.S. companies, with access to 350M end users if we had to negotiate Internet fast lane agreements with all network operators globally. If other countries follow the logic of the FCC proposal, we and other Internet companies would have to prioritize countries and regions.”

Global Healthy Living Foundation

“We are the first source of health-related news for thousands of people. When several contaminated vials of methotrexate (an arthritis medication) were recalled, we were one of the first organizations to reach out to the people in our community. Within two hours of disseminating the recall message through the Internet, we received two replies from members who were scheduled to take the contaminated medicine that afternoon. Our ability to quickly and efficiently reach a large number of people very likely saved lives. If we had slow or patchy service, we likely would have had a much smaller network that relied on us less often for information.”

Heyzap

“We could not have become the company we are today under the rules proposed by the FCC. We provide real-time recommendations of apps based on data gathered from users. This requires gathering a lot of data, bringing it to our computers, processing it, and sending recommendations and ads back to our users—all in fractions of a second. We need to process a lot of data, quickly. Any limitations in speed or consistency of our service would be noticeable to our users.

Meanwhile, under the Chairman’s proposed rules, broadband providers have strong incentives to make the differences between their standard and premium access options noticeable. If there were no noticeable differences, then no edge provider would feel the need to pay for premium access.”

TouchCast

“We are hoping to change the way people watch videos and TV. Established broadcast companies are wealthy and powerful, and they could easily forge exclusive agreements with broadband providers and lock us from those providers’ networks. While the Chairman’s proposal prevents NBC from forming an exclusive agreement with its affiliate, Comcast, it does nothing to prevent NBC from forming the same agreement with Verizon, or CBS with both Verizon and Comcast. These exclusive agreements could shut us out of the game entirely.”

Education Startups File Net Neutrality Comments with FCC

As you likely know by now, this summer is key in the fight for net neutrality and an open Internet. It is crucial for stakeholders to take this time to file comments at the Federal Communications Commission explaining why an open Internet is essential to their life and  businesses. Today, with our help, four startups in the education space -- who work directly with students to help them acquire the necessary skills to compete in the very global economy -- did just that.

The comments, filed by Codecademy, CodeCombat, General Assembly and OpenCurriculum, all make the central point that harm to net neutrality is harm to startups. In this case specifically, harm to education startups is harm to the pursuit of knowledge and America’s ability to compete in a global technological marketplace. And all four believe that harm can be mitigated by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We’ll be working with more startups to file comments as the summer continues. We want to make sure that startups in every industry have a voice in this debate. If you are interested in filing comment for your business, and would like our help, email us at comms@engine.is for more information. We hope you’ll join the fight and help us preserve an Internet free and open for innovation.

The existing comments will be posted to the FCC’s comment intake page and are available below for you to read at length:

Overall, these education startups reflect a wider community belief that reclassification is the best (and only) way to achieve the necessary end goal of making sure the Internet does not devolve into a mess of paid prioritization -- or fast and slow lanes. Staying this result is critically important in the field of education, where margins are tight, business is seen as a service, and the outcomes may provide the best fix yet for our economy on the rebound.

From CodeCombat comments:

When CodeCombat first started, resources were scarce, and if we had to negotiate with and pay funds to ISPs, we would have been unable to do so. At that time, we also would not have been able to use the FCC’s standard of “commercial reasonableness” or even a public advocate provided by the FCC to protect our interests. We still may not be able to do so.

...

Almost a million people have learned to code using CodeCombat, including 343,000 students during Code.org’s Hour of Code, a campaign that both President Obama and Republicans encouraged and embraced.We’ve also helped thousands of more experienced programmers hone their skills with more advanced levels. In addition, we’ve translated our game into 40 languages so that students around the world can learn to program as well.

...

We firmly oppose the FCC proposal. We urge the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent technical discrimination, paid prioritization, interconnection disputes, and the host of other harmful issues which would arise as a result of the adoption of the proposal.

From General Assembly comments:

With national attention on the rising cost of higher education and the crippling debt for recent graduates, General Assembly offers an important outlet for students looking to receive a high return on investment from their education. Over 100,000 students have benefitted from our services, including our 10 - 12 week long immersive programs and our three-month apprenticeship program that provides students with a paid opportunity to further hone their newly-acquired skills on the job.

...

Clear rules are important in promoting innovative enterprise. The factors of the commercial reasonableness test are too vague to provide certainty. These standards include “harm to consumers” or “to competition” and evaluation of a totality-of-the- circumstances. Such a standard will only lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation that start-ups cannot afford and which will therefore curb entrepreneurial activity to the benefit incumbent players and their legal teams.

General Assembly believes we need strong network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, discrimination, and access fees. These require reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act. The Internet works well today; allowing ISPs to price discriminate will harm businesses like ours, the general public, and the economic well-being of our country.

From OpenCurriculum comments:

We want to spend our time and resources transforming education, changing the lives of teachers and students, with the awareness that such education will have lasting impact on today’s young people throughout their entire lives and benefit society in general. Asking us to negotiate for “commercially reasonable” deals in light of our larger competitors being willing to pay a premium to keep us out of the market is rigging the market so we (and other entrants) lose. “Comforting” us with the right to hire lawyers and expert witnesses, or wait years for an FCC Ombudsman to win or lose a case whose legal standards are also stacked against us, provides no comfort.

….

Even if we find ways to pay for premium tiers with different cable and phone companies, this is going to significantly eat into our capital ­ affecting the way we grow and our ability to allow more teachers in the United States and around the world to get access to better quality teaching materials for the future generations.

...

The FCC should instead reclassify access to the Internet as a common carrier service and forbid unreasonable technical discrimination, define pay­-for­-play deals as inherently unjust and unreasonable, define access fees as inherently unreasonable charges, and apply these rules to both mobile and fixed platforms.

From Codecademy comments:

Codecademy is an innovative solution for schools and students to save money. Our company also has an important impact on job creation. We're building the basic steps of competency to help people start their own companies, websites, apps, and products and get entry level jobs right now. The next big thing, or an innovative solution to a social problem, could be developed by someone who learned how to code using Codecademy.

But none of that may happen if the FCC adopts its fast-lanes proposal and abandons an open Internet.

Senator Markey: FCC Already Has Power to Save the Internet

UPDATE 7/15/14: Sen. Markey has rallied fellow Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Barbara Boxer, as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to sign his letter telling the FCC they already have the power to save the Internet and reclassify under Title II. Here is a draft of the letter. Sen. Ron Wyden also backed the push for Title II "common carriage" regulation in a comment to the FCC. Wyden wrote that the FCC should call the Internet what it is: a "telecommunications service."

The last time Congress took up the issue of how to regulate telecommunications (telephones, broadcasting etc.), the Internet was but a dream, haltingly emerging into reality. It was 1996. At the time, then-Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts was the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Telecommunications Act in the House of Representatives; he shepherded the bill through various committees and the floor of the House, ultimately becoming a leading champion for the Internet along the way before the bill was signed into law by President Clinton.

Fast forward to today, and the Internet as we know it, shaped in large part by the 1996 Act, is under direct assault. Now-Senator Markey is still an advocate for the power of the Internet and is working to protect the needs of consumers and businesses nationwide.

The Senator is asking his fellow Senators to sign a letter urging FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make use of the power they believe is already afforded to him by the Telecommunications Act to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II. Only with reclassification under Title II can the FCC ban paid prioritization (fast-lanes) on the Internet.

As we’ve documented extensively, we agree with this sentiment and urge the Chairman to do exactly that. You too can help by urging your Senators to contact Senator Markey’s office and sign the letter. This battle must be fought on a number of fronts, and this is one where we have an opportunity to exert pressure.

Call your Senator today, and tell them to sign on with Ed!  Tell Chairman Wheeler to do what he has the power to do: reclassify the Internet under Title II.

New Legislation Revives JOBS Act Intentions

When I sat in the Rose Garden in April 2012 watching President Obama sign the JOBS Act into law, I remarked to myself, and anyone who would listen, just how far “the Internet” had come in terms of polished political activism and policy coherence in such a short amount of time: The JOBS Act was passed in six weeks. As originally intended, JOBS Act would have opened up new avenues for investment in early-stage startups, providing new ways for entrepreneurs to secure the funding they need to turn their ideas into reality.

But, just two years later, there are many within this community who have been left disheartened by the haphazard implementation of such an important law, and have also become hamstrung by the limitations put on them by the Securities and Exchange Commission -- in stark contrast to the spirit of that legislation.

The crowdfunding for equity provisions have yet to become a reality. And, perhaps more importantly, provisions on general solicitation aimed at making it easier for startups to widen their investor base in a more rational way, as opposed to the previous, wink-and-nod style capital formation, have made the situation worse to the point of being untenable for many early-stage companies, especially those who grow through accelerator programs.

Luckily, news from Washington this morning signals the beginning of a solution we hope will make the JOBS Act work for startups, angel investors and all those who wish to join their ranks. Dubbed the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups, or HALOS, Act (clever, because they’re supporting angels!), this important legislation, offered in a bipartisan manner in both houses,but led by Illinois Democrat Rep. Brad Schneider and Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot, would change the Regulation D rules governing General Solicitation to once allow “Demo Days” to continue once again.

Demoing early stage startups and their products has been a key way for companies to accelerate growth, but the unintended consequences of JOBS Act’s rulemaking at the SEC have complicated the process by which these startups can present their groundbreaking ideas. The current status quo stands in total contrast to the original intent of the legislation, and unfortunately we need a further fix.

Luckily, Reps. Schneider and Chabot have been joined by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patrick Toomey (R-PA) and John Thune (R-SD) to provide that legislative fix in the form of the HALOS Act. You can read the (short) bill in its entirety here. We encourage you to reach out to the co-sponsors and thank them for their foresight here, as well as to your own representative and Senators urging them to pass this important legislation.

Supreme Court’s Latest Patent Decision Reins-in Federal Circuit, Again

Today, the Supreme Court issued its latest  9-0 opinion, once again reining in the Federal Circuit’s consistently overbroad interpretations of patent law. The ruling, in Alice v. CLS Bank, deals with the question of what can and cannot be patented. Put simply, the Court held that unpatentable “abstract ideas” do not miraculously become patentable when they are merely tied to general purpose computers or generic hardware. Our patent laws already do not allow the government to issue patents on laws of nature, natural phemonen, and these so-called abstract ideas because we do not want to grant monopolies on things that belong to everyone. This concept is incredibly important because it deals directly with whether or not software is an unpatentable “abstract idea”. Is software an abstract mathematical algorithm? Or is it more?

Traditionally, software was always unpatentable. But that changed in the mid-1990s when the Federal Circuit issued a string of rulings allowing for software patents. In this 20-year experiment, we’ve seen serious abuses of the patent system, starting with poor quality patents, leading directly to the patent troll problem. Armed with these low-quality software patents, trolls have been able to wage a war on small businesses and individuals, costing our economy billions of dollars a year.

Despite this, the Federal Circuit (the appellate court that has jurisdiction of all patent cases), has been unwilling and unable to fix the quality problem with software patents. Which brings us to today’s ruling. Alice v. CLS Bank involved patents covering a computer system that helps with closing financial transactions by avoiding settlement risk (the risk that comes with any financial transaction if one party cannot uphold its end of the bargain). During the case’s tortured history, the Federal Circuit upheld those patents, and then later invalidated them. The last Federal Circuit opinion was 135 pages long, and the judges could only agree on 55 words.

So the Supreme Court took the case (along with five other patent cases this term -- an unprecedented number), and today, all nine justices invalidated the patents. Invalidating them wasn’t a surprise -- these patents were of particularly poor quality -- but the Court did make some important statements about patents and abstract ideas that should reign in the worst software patents.

First, it unequivocally stated that if you have an idea so abstract that it cannot be patented, simply tying it to a “generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."

Second, it stated that tying an abstract idea to “purely functional and generic” hardware similarly will not make the idea patentable.

This legalese is important. Most of the worst software patents do exactly what the Court said they can’t: present a general idea (e.g., hedging risk, one-click shopping, etc.) and say, because this idea is done on a computer, or a generic piece of hardware, it is not just an idea anymore. As computers play an ever-growing part in our everyday lives, you can understand the flaws in this logic. Today, the Supreme Court stopped it in its tracks.

Now, it’s true that the Court didn’t comment directly on “software” patents. But it did say that if you’re going to patent a software invention, it must be tied to something more specific than a general purpose computer or a generic piece of hardware. You can’t just run a generic piece of software on a general purpose computer and then stop everyone else in the world from doing the same for 20 years. Because, as we said at the outset, these types of ideas belong to everyone. They are fundamental building blocks of today’s technology, and society benefits when everyone can use them.

So we applaud the Court’s decision today, along with five others this term, for reminding the Federal Circuit Court that owning a patent monopoly is not an inherent right. Instead, patent law must be a delicate balance between granting patent owners limited and worthy monopolies, while leaving the rest of us with a vibrant public domain of ideas and technology on which to build.

ECPA Reform Bill Attracts Majority Support in House

This morning, Congress has taken a significant step towards defining privacy for the digital age in a way that will benefit startup companies and their users. The Email Privacy Act -- a common-sense piece of legislation that would bring ECPA (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) better in line with how the Internet actually works -- is supported by a majority of the House of Representatives. This kind of support, before a bill even comes to a vote, is an important sign that policymakers and their constituents understand that something must be done.

The Email Privacy Act gives online documents the same privacy protections granted to physical documents. Specifically, the bill would require government agencies to obtain warrants from a judge in order to force service providers to disclose private emails and documents they store online for their customers.

Since data play an increasingly important role for many startups, any uncertainty over compliance increases the burden of time and resources needed to handle the issue. The current status quo also disenfranchises businesses and consumers, and places an added strain on user trust. Under the current law, a complex legal request from law enforcement would force businesses to chose between facing fines and legal action while protecting their users, or complying with the government at the cost of alienating users.

The Email Privacy Act clarifies existing law, and provides a much-needed update to bring regulations in line with the digital age. We thank Reps. Yoder and Polis for their leadership on this important issue, and with majority support we look now to House leadership to move this bill, and we hope they act swiftly to pass this common sense reform.

New Bill To Ban Paid Internet Fast Lanes

This morning, Rep. Matsui and Sen. Leahy introduced a bill that would direct the FCC to ban paid prioritization deals on what’s known as “the last mile" - the final distance web content travels to reach a consumer. The draft “Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act” would ban preferential treatment on the Internet, upholding the principle of net neutrality.

Paid prioritization deals, as we have already argued, are inherently anti-competitive and violate the principles of a truly free Internet ecosystem. So this bill should be applauded for promoting the interests of startups, content creators, and Internet users; we support this effort and hope it sends the FCC a strong message that paid fast lanes should not become a new Internet standard. They should instead be banned.

"A free and open Internet is essential for consumers," said Matsui. "Our country cannot afford ‘pay-for-play’ schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets."

But, it's worth noting here that there is no way to achieve these aims without first reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II.

This year’s Verizon v FCC decision makes relying on section 706 legally impossible. In that case, the DC circuit court actually went so far as to say that under Section 706 the FCC would have to permit exclusive access arrangements, e.g., paid prioritization, among edge providers and ISPs, and that it could even charge similarly situated edge providers very different prices for the same level of access.

Only under Title II can the FCC can eliminate certain classes of fees and discrimination, including banning paid prioritization (or “fast lanes”) on the Internet altogether. We applaud Rep. Matsui’s and Sen. Leahy’s efforts to ensure an open Internet, and we hope the FCC follows suit.