09.19.11
Posted in Site News at 9:31 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Six years after CERN invented the World Wide Web, an AT&T engineer noticed that that his company was obsolete and wrote an essay called, “Rise of the Stupid Network.” There is a disturbing reassertion of Smart networks by telco companies built on non free software, spectrum ownership and lawsuits to prevent the build out of municipal networks. In 1997, David Isenberg noted:
The astute reader might by now suspect that the main beneficiaries of the Intelligent Network are the telephone companies themselves. Nevertheless, telephone companies propound a “philosophy” that the Intelligent Network makes it easy to introduce new services and new technologies, and to meet new customer needs. … Internet Telephony, because the Internet Protocol works at the level that user software manages the session, takes the telephone company out of the value equation. The Internet breaks the telephone company model by passing control to the end user.
He went on to vent some frustrations had while trying to improve services on AT&T’s voice quality. His team spent two years figuring out how to add a little more bass to voice without blowing up every piece of voice equipment but the wires. He concluded, “Want a different voice quality? With a Stupid Network, you’d get a different program, install it in your intelligent end user device and run it.”
These observations are common sense and very old news today. After more than a decade of relative network freedom, no one would go crawling back to Ma Bell would they? No one willingly.
With no sense apparent irony and perhaps great foresight, Isenberg credited Bill Gates with understanding the “new value proposition” of stupid networks. Gates is widely derided for having missed the world wide web in the early 90′s, especially in his writing and toy computer software, Windows 95, which did not have a web browser. Gates understood the proposition as an extortionist. The value would no longer come from owning networks and charging users for each and every particle of service, it would come from owning computers through non free software and charging for every particle of service. It is likely that telcos understood this lesson too, though they practiced it with less success after being broken up.
So it was with great surprise and alarm that I learned that there are now almost as many subscribers to “broadband” cell networks as cable modem and dsl subscribers in the US. Persistent networks are being used as bait to get people to surrender their software and network freedom. AT&T got to this position by suing to stop municipal networks, through rampant corruption in spectrum auctions, and a series of mergers and acquisitions that have combined most of their once mighty empire. They have also embraced free, to them, software. Android, the most “open” of smart phones, is not free software. As Richard Stallman put it,
we can tolerate non-free phone network firmware provided new versions of it won’t be loaded, it can’t take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In other words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry must not be malicious. There is no obstacle to building an Android phone which has these characteristics, but we don’t know of any.
“The Cloud” through AT&T is a dystopian throwback to dumb terminals and computers owned by others that should not exist in a world that’s overflowing with cheap computers, radio devices and networks.
Alternatives exist to falling back into the wiretapped world of 1960′s telco. The most obvious alternative is to demand software freedom for smart phones and network freedom for cell phone networks. As Isenberg demanded fifteen years ago, “just deliver the bits, stupid.” Open Spectrum is the technically and ethically proper replacement to spectrum auctions that is ready, fast and finally in production testing but threatened. Another good solution is to cooperate and build out municipal networks. There are several of these running in the US in cities like Tacoma which provide excellent and fair service. We should be so lucky to have any but we should demand all of these alternatives.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 8:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Goodbye to old Identi.ca (shown below)
Summary: Identi.ca returned to full operation late on Monday and it generally looks good. The upgrade took longer than expected and soon after this site’s return, the front end went down again for a couple of hours. We look at how this affects Techrights now that it’s all back to “live” mode with some bugs.
Identi.ca is a fast communication medium that many of us at Techrights use (personally I’ve used it for 2.5 years, longer than I was on Twitter). It has transformed into something more like Google+ or Diaspora rather than microblogging (like Twitter).
Identi.ca upgraded to a new version over the weekend and this affects how some of us communicate and how our IRC channels are run. Since yesterday, the rightmost sidebar column (along with ladder-shaped Twitter feed) contains more information of interest. it is based entirely on some Identi.ca feeds that bring information from somewhere out there quicker than blog posts can. The new Identi.ca seems to have not lost backward compatibility as Chokoq, for example, still works fine (without software updates on the client side) and so does the IRC bot (dependent on the new page layouts and APIs). One can see new features on the server/service side, but there are not so many of them. It’s mostly about improved usability and simpler conversation facilities. Experimental new features include data export (which seems not to work based on my tests). During the migration some metadata was lost, but it could be recovered manually (salvaged even) from cache. The timelines got a little too verbose and Identi.ca accounts are therefore getting a little too much input.
“It has transformed into something more like Google+ or Diaspora rather than microblogging (like Twitter).”We are not sure whether it’s strictly just one background picture for all users (standardised like Digg or Facebook, as opposed to older versions) and Twitter is not as well connected as before (there was a bridge to allow Identi.ca users to maintain a mirror in Twitter, but it is not available now, perhaps temporarily).
There are clearly some new bugs, e.g. in “Tags”, which won’t show up in anyone’s case and the upgrade did not migrate these data fields, either. But that’s fair enough, it’s a limitation of Web-based software and it requires ironing out.
The bottom line is, things are significantly improved following the upgrade and it was worth the wait (scheduled downtime). Because of the licence, it is the only such service we ever endorsed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Job cremation
Summary: The USPTO (shown above) comes under more fire as a so-called ‘reform’ fails to make it harmonious with science, technology, and human rights
THE USPTO IS happily granting software patents/monopolies and processing some patent-pending ones on green energy, demonstrating that it is still dissociated from the betterment of society and instead dedicated to protectionism.
The First Amendment is said to be violated by some particular types of patents, according to TechDirt which argues:
Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
We’ve been following the extremely worrisome Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services case for a while now. This is the case in which Prometheus patented some basic medical diagnostics tests, and then sued the Mayo Clinic for daring to do similar diagnostics without paying up. Tragically, CAFC, the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit, has ruled that it’s just fine and dandy to patent a diagnostic test. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on this in the upcoming term, and folks at the Cato Institute have filed a very interesting amicus brief, arguing that such a diagnostic test should not be patentable on two key points. I don’t know that it’ll convince the court, but they try out the argument that doing so would actually be a First Amendment violation, and even cite the famous Eldred case to make their argument (emphasis mine in the quote here):
As we explained yesterday, antitrust concerns too help shed doubt on the legitimacy of the patent system. Google may have bought some more patents from IBM (mentioned in the context of software patents in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]), but deterrence does not work when Microsoft uses patent trolls to wage anti-competitive legal wars. This whole systems looks more and more like s sham. Even NPR did a show about it about 3 days ago. To quote a part of it:
BLOCK: What is the broader goal in terms of job creation here?
SYDELL: Well, this is what they say. What they say is if we speed things up and we get that backlog cleared up, then there are all these startups that are just waiting to move to the next phase of financing and get their products to market. And they’ll be able to do that and they’ll hire people in the process. So that’s what they’re saying.
BLOCK: And what about those businesses, Laura, or inventors, entrepreneurs – do they think that the law will, in fact, encourage hiring, make them hire more people?
SYDELL: No, I’m not hearing that largely at all. I’m hearing a lot of skepticism about the bill. I think one of the problems that entrepreneurs and startups face is that there are a lot of bad patents that are out there, particularly in the realm of software and business method. And the bill doesn’t really do anything to address that.
So one of the problems that you have is you have a lot of these, they call them patent trolls. They’re companies that buy up patents, particularly broad patents. They buy them up and they go out and they sue startups and they demand licensing fees. And this has put a lot of startups out of business. And this bill doesn’t really do anything to address that problem.
The Patent Office has granted, for example, in 2000, they granted a patent for a method of making toast. Really, seriously.
BLOCK: Laura, what other solutions would there be to this problem of bad patents that you’re talking about that wouldn’t involve Congress?
SYDELL: The courts could step in. And, in fact, it is the courts who initially pushed to have, for example, software patents and business method patents granted. So they could pull back and there is some evidence they are. But I think it could be a long time before they address it directly. And people are concerned about that.
I think a lot of people wish Congress would revisit this soon. And they’re worried that because they just granted and created this new act it’ll be a long time before Congress steps in again, which really would be the fastest and most efficient way to address the problem.
BLOCK: NPR’s Laura Sydell. We were talking about the new U.S. patent bill that was signed into law by President Obama today.
There are more news articles about it, e.g. [1, 2], but only few mention software patents. The government which signed this ridiculous bill ignores the real issues, spews out a load of nonsense which contradicts research, and one GNU/Linux advocate had this to say on Saturday:
Patent "reform"? Not really.
From: Homer
Date: Saturday 17 Sep 2011 14:38:53
Groups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Apparently "patent reform" happened already, and nobody noticed. But
what exactly happened, and what effect will it have on patent trolls
like Myhrvold, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, perhaps the biggest threats
to Linux, Free Software and innovation in general?
[quote]
Late last night the Senate voted 89-9 to pass the America Invents Act
that would radically reshape patent laws, and President Obama is
expected to sign it without delay. It's the first such significant bill
in 60 years, and it has one key component: It moves the onus from merely
"inventing" a patentable idea first to becoming the person who actually
files for an innovation first.
...
But "first to invent" has some big pitfalls, including the ability of an
inventor to totally gut the hopes of someone else with a similar or
identical idea, and who then files for a patent--because the original
inventor, without necessarily having to make any move toward realizing
the innovation, can claim they invented it. A complex legal battle may
then ensue, and perhaps the second filer may choose to settle privately,
license the idea, or fight the situation in an expensive court case.
This trolling completely destroys the idea that a successful new thing
is built on 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration--a troll, perhaps even a
rich troll who's made money from previous innovations they've dreamed up
(or, more materialistically, bought from someone), can simply keep the
legal upper hand by saying they're the real innovator without actually
building anything.
[/quote]
http://www.fastcompany.com/1779071/first-to-file-a-patently-obvious-reform
Sorry (and excuse the pun) but this is patently wrong. Invention is
invention, not manufacturing; it's the idea (strictly - the method) not
the implementation. If you're not the first to have a particular idea,
then you're not its inventor. Period. This "reform" simply transforms
"invention" into a brawl, where being the first to find or create
something doesn't necessarily secure ownership - you can be mugged for
it by someone more powerful.
Is this really all the "America Invents Act" has to offer? Is this the
best "reform" congress could come up with? Pathetic.
/Real reform/ would have been a re-examination and redefinition of what
exactly is patentable, a more rigorous patent examination process (or,
let's be honest, /any/ patent examination process), and stricter (or
again - /any/) remedies against those who persistently file trivial
claims.
/Real reform/ would have made patents non-transferable, thus completely
solving the problem of patent harvesting by non-practising entities.
/Real reform/ would have made it impossible to patent something as
trivial and non-inventive as a "rounded rectangle" or a "record button".
But no, that's not what the "America Invents Act" has done at all. All
it's done is make innovation impossible for anyone who lacks the
financial means to bribe the USPTO, and allows the wealthy to steal
others' ideas. The US patent system was already an abomination, but now,
incredibly, it's actually an order of magnitude /worse/.
Apart from anything else, it seems to completely undermine the premise
of "prior art", since apparently the only thing that counts now is being
the "first to file", regardless of who actually came up with, or even
implemented, the idea first.
Consider the case of IP Innovation LLC and the Technology Licensing
Company (ex-Microsoft employees, and likely just two of Myhrvold's many
shell companies) vs. Red Hat & Novell, where the litigants claimed
they'd "invented" multiple workspaces. Of course, their definition of
"invented" was "harvested patents from Xerox".
Unfortunately for the patent trolls, those patents were granted in 1991,
some 6 years /after/ multiple workspaces ("screens") had already been
implemented on the Amiga, and so they lost the case. Indeed Commodore
implemented the concept as a commercial product in 1985, a full year
before it was even first implemented internally by Xerox PARC, and the
Amiga implementation was based on ideas devised by Jay Miner (of the
original "Amiga Corporation") as far back as 1982, some two years before
it was even first imagined at Xerox PARC.
But that prior art would apparently mean nothing in the new patent
regime, since neither Jay Miner nor Commodore thought to patent the
concept of multiple workspaces, despite clearly being the inventors and
first implementers of the concept. Xerox PARC was the "first to file",
and that's all that matters in a gun-slinger economy. Anyone with enough
money can now file patents against other people's prior art, use them as
weapons to extort money, from anyone - including the /actual/ inventors,
then pass those weapons on to other gun-slingers to do likewise.
Meanwhile those same gun-slingers remain free to claim "invention" of
every trivial speck of dust in the world, completely unchallenged until
they turn up in the "great" troll-friendly State of Texas, and either
win on the basis of the corrupt court's pro-patent bias, or bleed their
victims dry in the process.
So much for "patent reform".
It’s all about inflating the elevating the amount of patents (under the assumption that patents have real value, as legal types wish us to believe), but if the assumption is that this bill will give more jobs to patent lawyers, maybe they have a point. Just creating more and more monopolies is like overprinting money, which devalues the currency but works well for the mint. Watch McKool Smith in the news last week, pulling $391,000,000 from an actual practicing company based on this press release:
Attorneys from McKool Smith have secured a $391 million court judgment in favor of firm client Versata Software Inc., a pioneer in front-office enterprise software, following a successful patent infringement lawsuit against global software giant SAP America Inc. and its German-based parent company SAP AG (NYSE: SAP).
That is some really expensive “patent infringement”. Notice that SAP America Inc. is the target. The USPTO really needs to get its act together or go away. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Cablegate, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft at 3:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at cables where Microsoft’s Craig Mundie (one of the very top chiefs) is mentioned as involved
According to the following Cablegate cable, “Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China’s need to create an environment that would allow innovators to be financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They cited the need for real intellectual property rights…”
In other public talks, Mundie was bashing the GPL. It matters because Mundie is influential [1, 2] and he speaks to influential people (he is also among those attending Bilderberg meetings). The following two cables help us see where he’s making these engagements (see ¶7 in the first cable and 1045-1145 for the middle eastern programme in the second cable).
VZCZCXRO8717
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHGH #7085/01 3310818
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 270818Z NOV 06
FM AMCONSUL SHANGHAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5292
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0028
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0101
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0006
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0001
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0012
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 0020
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0642
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0001
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU 0331
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0421
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0001
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0004
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0001
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 0334
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0303
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0001
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0008
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU 0313
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 5610
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 SHANGHAI 007085
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
USDOC FOR 4420/ITA/MAC/CEA/MCQUEEN
USDOC ALSO PASS TO NIST AND BEA
STATE PASS USTR
USTR FOR STRATFORD/WINTER/MCCARTIN/ALTBACH/READE
TREASURY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
TREASURY FOR OASIA/ISA -- DOHNER, HAARSAGER AND CUSHMAN
GENEVA PASS USTR
PARIS PASS TO USOECD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], EFIN [Financial and Monetary Affairs], EINV [Foreign Investments],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], PGOV [Internal Governmental Affairs],
PREL [External Political Relations], CH [China (Mainland)],
WTO [World Tourism Organization]
SUBJECT: INNOVATION REQUIRED FOR CHINA'S ECONOMIC GROWTH
REF: BEIJING 23856
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The National Bureau of Statistics and the
U.S.-based Conference Board hosted a national forum on
Innovation and China Economic Growth October 20- 22 in Suzhou,
Jiangsu Province. During the conference, PRC officials from the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), People's Bank of China
(PBOC) and the Shanghai Stock Exchange, as well as
representatives of foreign multinational corporations, discussed
"self-innovation" and identified systemic changes necessary to
foster innovation in China. The systemic changes included:
increased IPR protection, financial sector liberalization,
openness to the world, and creation of a society in which
failure was acceptable. End summary.
---------------------------
CHINA: Big, but not Strong
---------------------------
¶2. (U) CPPCC Vice Chairwoman Zhang Meiying stressed in her
keynote address the importance that China's leadership has
placed on innovation. Zhang said that while China's total GDP
made it the fourth largest economy in the world, on a per capita
basis, China ranked only 110th in the world. This showed that
China was a big country, but not a strong country. According to
Zhang, under President Hu Jintao's leadership, China has decided
that the way to create strength from size is through self
innovation.
¶3. (U) Zhang said that rapid growth over the past twenty years
had placed strains on national resources that would lead to
decreased economic development. China needed to rely on
innovation to create a foundation for sustainable growth. China
had a low proportion of clean, high-technology industries.
China's leadership realized that the environment was not a free
commodity and that environmental damage would devour many of
China's economic gains. While China manufactured low-technology
items, it was dependent on other countries for its
high-technology needs. Additionally, China's consumption of
energy and raw materials per unit of production far exceeded
that of developed world and was not sustainable, she said. If
China did not develop its own human resources, China would
continue to be only the manufacturing base for the rest of the
world.
¶4. (U) According to Zhang, in major industries, such as the
petroleum and electronics industries, China was dependent on
imported technology for 75-80 percent of its needs. She said
that China needed to learn to innovate to create its own core
technologies. She said that China needed to "digest
technologies from other countries" before it could "re-innovate
these technologies for other purposes." China needed to
generously fund its own scientists to insure its "leap-frog in
development." She also criticized the "longstanding planned
economy mindset" in China that meant that companies were too
passive -- not taking on risks or investing in the future. As a
result, she said, these companies were not positioned for
success, and China lagged behind. Zhang's speech was widely
quoted and referred to by other government speakers during the
course of the weekend conference.
SHANGHAI 00007085 002 OF 004
-------------------
What is Innovation?
-------------------
¶5. (SBU) When asked how the Chinese government defined
"self-innovation," National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) China
National Research Association Secretary General Zhang Zhongliang
said: "China is a big country, but it has no power. China needs
to import 90 percent of its technology. China needs to develop
its own name-brands and self-proprietary technology so that it
can build a strong economy. To be a strong country, China needs
to develop its own innovative abilities."
¶6. (U) In his talk, Development Research Center of the State
Council (DRC) Deputy Director Liu Shijin outlined what was meant
by self-innovation. He said that the three kinds of innovation
are prime innovation, re-innovation, and the integration of
innovation from abroad into China. Liu said that foreign
companies with investments or joint ventures in China had
expressed their concern with China's emphasis on self-innovation
and begun to limit their investment in innovative areas. He
tried to put them at ease by explaining that any innovation done
in China by foreign companies located here was actually "Chinese
self-innovation" because ultimately these companies would
contribute to the building of China and its capabilities.
Ministry of Commerce Vice Minister Shang Ming was more explicit
when he said, "Self-innovation does not rule out the importation
of innovative technologies from abroad."
--------------------------------------------- ----------
Requirements for Innovation - IPR and Financial Reforms
--------------------------------------------- ----------
¶7. (U) Multiple speakers from Microsoft Chief Research and
Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua
School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China's need
to create an environment that would allow innovators to be
financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They
cited the need for real intellectual property rights to protect
innovation and a competitive financial sector that fostered
"innovations" such as venture capital and other mechanisms for
the efficient distribution of financial resources.
¶8. (U) People's Bank of China Vice Governor Su Ning said that
due to increased global competition, China needed to tear down
restrictions in the financial sector. He said that Chinese
banks needed to reform and innovate in order to increase their
margins of profitability. He also said that China needed to
reform its regulatory framework to allow for financial products
such as bonds, funds, options and other ways to diversify
financial risk. He stressed that China needed a unified credit
database to enable efficient access to financing.
¶9. (U) Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) President Zhu Congjiu noted
that while there was 30 trillion RMB (about USD 3.8 trillion)
worth of capital available in China, Chinese companies had a
"weak capability to engage in venture capital." He said this
SHANGHAI 00007085 003 OF 004
was why quality companies chose to go public abroad, rather than
in China. It also meant, he added, that 83 percent of all
venture capital in China was from foreign sources. According to
Zhu, the SSE planned to make the reforms necessary to keep
Chinese companies in China by creating an environment where they
would have access to the capital they needed domestically. In
response to a question, Zhu admitted that for the financial
sector, "innovation" actually meant reforming the Chinese system
to be more like the international financial market standard.
--------------------------------------------- ---
Innovative Translation -- Some Words Left Unsaid
--------------------------------------------- ---
¶10. (SBU) The conference theme as translated in English was
"Innovation and China Economic Growth." In Chinese, however,
the title was "Self-Innovation (Zizhu Chuangxin) and China
Economic Growth." Chinese government speakers all used the word
"self-innovation," but the translators uniformly translated it
as "innovation." Conference speaker European Union Economics
and Regional Officer Leila Fernandez-Stembridge noted to Econoff
that this appeared to be an intentional "mistranslation." Price
Waterhouse Coopers Senior Advisor Kenneth DeWoskin, another
conference speaker, speculated that a political decision had
been made to de-emphasize the Chinese-centric focus on "self" in
an attempt to soften the tone of the conference.
---------------------------------------
When Innovation Means Using an Airbrush
---------------------------------------
¶11. (SBU) DeWoskin noted to Econoff that the "palpable unspoken
undercurrent" had been the sacking of NBS head Qiu Xiaohua eight
days before the conference in connection with the Shanghai
pension corruption scandal. No mention of Qiu was made
publicly, even when Xie was introduced as only having been on
the job for a week. An NBS employee who helped organize the
conference materials told Econoff about the "huge amount of
work" that he had to re-do in replacing Qiu Xiaohua's
information and name with that of new leader Xie Fuzhen in all
of the many professionally produced bound conference materials.
An NBS press officer commented that his office had been given no
notice of the sacking and been inundated with "questions we
cannot answer."
-------------------------------------
Challenges Facing Innovation in China
-------------------------------------
¶12. (SBU) Sixteen non-governmental speakers at the conference,
including Sun Microsystems Vice President Piper Cole, GE China
Technology Center Managing Director Bijan Dorri, and The
Conference Board Executive Vice President Gail Fosler, China
were tasked with outlining how China could create and nurture an
environment that led to innovative people and companies. These
speakers described several challenges that China faced to its
SHANGHAI 00007085 004 OF 004
drive for self-innovation, including:
- China needed to stay open to the world. Innovation would be
greatly hampered in a closed system.
- China needed to avoid "nationalizing" or "branding" its
innovations in a way that would limit its global reach. By
creating a "China standard" different from global standards,
China would shut itself out of competition.
- China needed to protect intellectual property rights in order
to protect those who had taken risk.
- China needed to create the financial market conditions that
would support venture capital in order to reward risk takers.
- China needed to create a social milieu in which failure was
acceptable. If the price of failure was too high, no one would
take any risks.
- China needed to develop educational systems that continued to
foster interest in math and science.
¶13. (SBU) Chinese government speakers appeared receptive and
largely agreed to the above list of prescriptions. However,
they tended to stress the importance of Chinese brands and
standards being the mark of Chinese innovation. As one speaker
commented, "We hope that the day will come when the label does
not read 'Made in China' but 'Created in China.'"
¶14. (SBU) Comment: Innovation -- or self-innovation -- has
clearly been identified as the next necessary step in China's
economic development strategy. While the mission is clear,
China still faces enormous systemic economic, legal, educational
and social barriers to create an innovation-friendly environment.
JARRETT
VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB
DE RUEHC #2095 0361847
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 051838Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD PRIORITY 0000
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHDO/AMEMBASSY DOHA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHKU/AMEMBASSY KUWAIT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMK/AMEMBASSY MANAMA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMS/AMEMBASSY MUSCAT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 0000
RUEHYN/AMEMBASSY SANAA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 0000
UNCLAS STATE 012095
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECIN [Economic Integration and Cooperation],
ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet], MARR [Military and Defense Arrangements],
MCAP [Military Capabilities], PREL [External Political Relations],
XF [Middle East]
SUBJECT: GULF REGION COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE 2010 UPDATE
REF: 09 STATE 122229
¶1. This is an action request. See paragraph 6.
¶2. SUMMARY. Reftel announced a by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan, 21-23
February 2010, co-hosted by United States Central Command
(USCENTCOM) and the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF). Reftel
requested posts deliver a hold-the-date request to regional
civilian and/or government attendees pending release of
formal invitations. A separate notification was distributed
to military attendees through military channels. On 4
February 2010, USCENTCOM forwarded to posts, in care of the
security assistance offices, hard copy and electronic
versions of the formal GRCC invitations, along with RSVP
registration information and conference agenda, for delivery
to attendees. Invitations are co-signed by Commander,
USCENTCOM and by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JAF.
This cable requests posts deliver invitations and an update
notification to regional civilian and/or government attendees
to further highlight the conference and encourage
participation. In order to ensure timely delivery of
invitations, please deliver update notifications based on
receipt of, and in conjunction with, the electronic
invitations, and forward hard copy versions when they arrive.
Draft update notification language is provided in paragraph
¶6. END SUMMARY
¶3. For reference, the following is the text for USCENTCOM's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Mr. Communications Minister,
On behalf of United States Central Command, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
The conference follows last year's inaugural conference in
Bahrain. Again, our intent is to gather regional
communications representatives to collaborate on topics of
mutual interest in a Regional forum. Ministers of
communications, communications regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United
States communications representatives from the federal,
military, and private sectors are invited. Regional private
sector representatives will also be invited.
Conference participants will be able to address regional
communications capabilities and concerns and discuss
opportunities to support regional stability and security
efforts. The enclosed conference agenda is provided for your
information.
We would be honored to have you join us. Mr. John Simpson,
the Central Command point of contact (813-827-3931,
simpsoja@centcom.mil), will accept replies. A detailed
conference information packet will be sent separately.
With warm regards,
DAVID H. PETRAEUS
General, U.S. Army
Commander,
United States Central Command
¶4. Also for reference, the following is the text for JAF's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Honorable Minister,
On behalf of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
We believe last year's conference in Bahrain was a great
success, and we are looking forward to hosting distinguished
communicators within the Kingdom of Jordan.
This next GRCC will enable us, as partners, to continue our
examination and discussion of the Region's most significant
communications concerns. We are hopeful that this forum and
its actions will lead to improved capabilities, stability,
and security within the Gulf Nations and across the Region.
Communications ministers and regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United States
communications representatives from the federal, military,
and private sectors are invited. Representatives of the Gulf
Region's private sector will also be invited. The enclosed
conference agenda is provided for your information.
We would be honored to have you join us in the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan.
With utmost respect,
General
Khaled J. Al-Sarayreh
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff
Jordan Armed Forces
¶5. The agenda's structure and content reflect extensive
collaboration with JAF, including integration of
JAF-recommended panel discussions. Each participating nation
will be given one speaking part (seat) on each panel and one
speaking part (five minute presentation) during closing
remarks. All attendees will be invited to participate in
roundtable discussions. For reference, the GRCC Agenda
follows:
21-23 February 2010
Grand Hyatt Hotel
Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Sunday, 21 February
Arrival of conference participants and registration at Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Amman, Jordan, Telephone: 962-6-456-1234
1830-2000
RECEPTION (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and
distinguished visitors (DVs)
HOST: U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Monday, 22 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0905
CONFERENCE WELCOME (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier General
Ghazi Salem Salman al-Jobor, Director of the Special
Communications Commission, Jordan Ministry of Defense
0905-0910
TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT FAMILIARIZATION
0910-0930
CONFERENCE OPENING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Kingdom of Jordan
Representatives (TBD)
0930-1000
PRESENTATION 1 - His Excellency Marwan Juma, Jordan Minister
of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Sector Policy--Mobile Communications, Fixed Services,
and Regional Connectivity
1000-1030
PRESENTATION 2 - Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory
Commission
TOPIC: Regulation of Telecommunications
1030-1045
BREAK
1045-1145
PRESENTATION 3 - Mr. Craig Mundie, Chief Research and
Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation, United States
TOPIC: Cloud Computing
1145-1245
PANEL DISCUSSION 1 - Industry/Government Representatives
TOPIC: Implementing Cloud Computing Solutions to
Information Exchange Challenges
1245-1345
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications
Technology
1400-1415
GROUP PHOTO SESSION (Hotel Location TBD)
1415-1515
ROUNDTABLE 1 - Roundtable Moderator, TBD
TOPIC: Policy and Regulation Perspective--Improving
Telecommunications across the Region and across the
Commercial, Government, and Military Sectors
1515-1535
PRESENTATION 4A - Brigadier General Ghazi Salem Salman
al-Jobor, Jordan Ministry of Defense
TOPIC: Mobile Communications in Support of Relief Operations
1535-1555
PRESENTATION 4B - Brigadier General Mowafaq Assaf, Royal
Jordanian Air Force
TOPIC: Fiber Infrastructure in Support of Government and
Civilian Agencies
1555-1655
PANEL DISCUSSION 2 - Military Communicators
TOPIC: Mobile, Fixed, and Fiber Communications
1655-1830
FREE TIME
1830-1900
COCKTAILS (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
1900-2100
DINNER (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Tuesday, 23 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0915
ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier
General Ghazi
0915-0945
PRESENTATION 5 - Lieutenant General Carroll F. Pollett,
United States Army, Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency
TOPIC: Synchronizing Commercial, Government, and Military
Communications Priorities in the United States
0945-1015
PRESENTATION 6 - Mr Sami Smeirat, Chief Executive Officer,
Orange Company, Jordan
TOPIC: Regional Reach
1015-1030
BREAK
1030-1130
ROUNDTABLE 2 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Synchronizing Wireless Challenges and Potential
Solutions
1130-1200
PRESENTATION 7 - Mr. Nidal Qanadilo, Investment Manager,
Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Fiber Communications in Support of E-learning,
E-government, and Rural Areas
1200-1300
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
1345-1415
ROUNDTABLE 3 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Regional Fiber Backbone Solutions to Civilian,
Government and Military Challenges
1415-1445
ROUNDTABLE 4 - Brigadier General Donahue, Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: 2010 Conference Action Items and 2011 Conference
Theme and Topics
1445-1500
BREAK
COUNTRY REMARKS
1500-1510, Kingdom of Bahrain
1510-1520, Arab Republic of Egypt
1520-1530, Republic of Iraq
1530-1540, State of Kuwait
1540-1550, Republic of Lebanon
1550-1600, Sultanate of Oman
1600-1610, State of Qatar
1610-1620, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
1620-1630, United Arab Emirates
1630-1640, Republic of Yemen
1640-1700
CLOSING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Jordan Representatives TBD
1700
CONFERENCE CONCLUDES
¶6. Action Request: Washington agencies request posts ensure
delivery of invitations and deliver the following update
notification regarding GRCC 2010 to the appropriate regional
civilian and/or government attendees by 8 February 2010.
Please notify the USCENTCOM and State POCs in paragraph 7 on
completion of action by 10 February 2010. Email replies are
acceptable.
Dear (Embassies, please address invitations to appropriate
individuals listed),
ABU DHABI:
-- His Excellency Muhammad bin Ahmad Alqamzi, Chairman
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
-- His Excellency Mohamed Nassar Al Ghanim, Director General
and Board Member Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
BAGHDAD:
-- His Excellency Farooq Abdulqadir Abdulrahman, Minister of
Communications
-- Barhan Shawi Al-Tamimi, DG, Communications & Media
Commission
-- His Excellency Mazin Hashim Al-Haboubi, CEO Deputy for
Administrative Affairs
BEIRUT:
-- His Excellency Mr. Charbel Nahas, Minister of
Telecommunications
-- Dr. Kamal S. Shehadi, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
of Telecommunications Regulatory Agency
CAIRO:
-- His Excellency Dr. Tarek Kamel, Minister of Communications
and Information Technology
-- Dr. Amr Badawy, Executive President of National
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
DOHA:
-- His Excellency Dr. Hessa Al-Jaber, Secretary General
Supreme Council of Information & Communications Technology
-- Mister William Fagan, Director, Supreme Council of
Information & Communications Technology
KUWAIT:
-- Dr. Mohammed Mohsen Al-Busairi, Minister of Communications
MANAMA:
-- Dr. Mohammed Al Amer, Chairman and Acting General
Director, Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
MUSCAT:
-- His Excellency Dr. Khamis bin Mubarak al Alawi, Minister
of Transportation and Communications
-- His Excellency Mohammed Nasser Al-Khusaibi, Chairman,
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
RIYADH:
-- Mister Mohammed Jameel bin Ahmed Mulla, Minister of
Communications and Information Technology
-- Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Jafari, Governor Communications and
Information Technology Commission
SANAA:
-- His Excellency Kamal Al-Jabri, Minister of
Telecommunications & Information Technology
United States Central Command and the Jordanian Armed Forces
will co-host the by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) 2010 in Amman, Jordan on
21-23 February 2010. Formal invitations have been distributed
to you separately along with details regarding RSVPs and
registration and the conference agenda. GRCC 2010 will
continue GRCC 2009 multilateral engagement on regional
telecommunications and information sharing capabilities and
will foster cooperation among our respective entities in
order to overcome challenges, to include crisis response
and/or disaster relief missions.
GRCC 2010 presentations and discussions support a theme of
Synchronizing Commercial, Government and Military
Communications Priorities. GRCC 2010 adds panel discussions
to the GRCC 2009 conference format of presentations and
roundtables. Each nation attending the conference will be
given one seat for a national representative on each panel.
As with GRCC 2009, roundtable discussions will be open to
participation by all attendees. Each nation attending the
conference will also be given five minutes for one national
representative to present closing remarks. Please identify to
the conference co-hosts as soon as possible those individuals
who will represent (post, please insert here your nation) on
each panel and present closing remarks.
I encourage you to attend the conference.
Sincerely,
(DoS originator name)
(DoS originator title)
U.S. Department of State
¶7. CENTCOM point of contact for the conference:
Jim Ramirez DAFC
U.S. Central Command
Deputy, Strategic C4 Architecture Programs and Policy
Division
* (813) 827-5816 DSN 651-5816
* ramirejs@centcom.mil
* ramirejs@centcom.smil.mil
State Department points of contact for the conference:
COL Dave Huggins
Senior Military Advisor, Near Eastern Affairs Bureau
* (202) 647-3945
* HugginsWD@state.sgov.gov
Steve Simpson
Communications and Information Policy / Middle East
Energy, Economic, and Business Affairs
* (202) 647-5306
* SimpsonSC@state.gov
* SimpsonSC@state.sgov.gov
CLINTON
Yes, that latter cable is signed by Clinton. Interestingly enough, Mundie is doing politics. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA