Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Deko

Who put in the FOI request that the El reg article refers to ?

It may well have been someone at The Register (Chris Williams himself maybe). It is quite common for journalists to use FOI requests to fish for stories.

Probably just exempted for commercial reasons - patented technology etc - but the reason really ought to stated.

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Deko

on what grounds was this info withheld ?

From the article:

"The content of the correspondence are being kept secret by officials, who cite confidentiality exemptions under FOIA."

So they are saying that the contents of those communications cannot be revealed because they are confidential. Hypocritical, no? If it is challenged then they may well release them with certain bits (such as peoples names) blacked out.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Peter N

Probably just exempted for commercial reasons - patented technology etc - but the reason really ought to stated.

Sorry to nitpick but patents are public. There could be other commercial reasons though.

[oblonsky]

The reg article talks about divisions between different arms of BT. Maybe one of the insiders can confirm this but I heard there were divisions within BT retail, like a large number of engineering being unhappy about Phorm - take at face value, rumour and hearsay...

[Ravenheart]

With the info from this latest FOIA request I hope that the ICO can see they've been misled or that both BT and Phorm "have been economical with the truth" I also hope that the documents from this finds it's way to the desk of Viviene Reding.

[SelfProtection]

I like the bit at the end
Quote:
Today BT's spokesman said invitations would be issued "soon". He refused to elaborate, citing fears the project would become a "hostage to fortune"


I take that it means that everyone is doing a great job of spreading the word and getting ready for the trails and BT are scared as to what will happen when the trails do start.
BT, just don't and make everyones life easier.


They wouldn't have to worry about being Hostages to Fortune, if they had a decent Business & Commercial Product would they?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Deko

Who put in the FOI request that the El reg article refers to ?



on what grounds was this info withheld ?

Well we may well find out. The Tribunal for appealing such things has been behaving in a fairly robust manner recently, and may not be prepared to allow the exemption.

[Deko]

Anyone spoken to Chris @ the reg. to get the FOI request and the response documents ?

Would be good to put the info in one place like the other FOI bundles.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Deko

Anyone spoken to Chris @ the reg. to get the FOI request and the response documents ?

Would be good to put the info in one place like the other FOI bundles.

I'll upload the doc to Dephormation this evening.

Pete.

[Deko]

Ahh it was you all along Pete, fancied giving the Reg a "SCLUSIVE" did you :-)

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by Deko

Who put in the FOI request that the El reg article refers to ?

on what grounds was this info withheld ?

"Commercially confidential", though given the details of Phorm are now well known, the details of the trials are public knowledge, its hard to see what possible justification there could be for withholding that correspondance.

Originally Posted by rryles

Sorry to nitpick but patents are public. There could be other commercial reasons though.

Phorm's overall technology is currently Patent Pending though is does make use of some that are already patented. A level of protection is offered whilst the patent is being considered as long as it is registered and this would almost certainly include an FOI act exemption otherwise the act would be wide open to abuse by rival companies.

Also bear in mind that patents only describe the uses and applications of the new technology in broad terms in order to qualify as an invention under the terms of the relevant acts.

[phormwatch]

Argh. OK, I'm going to try and finish the open letter to business. Can someone please find me an official quote where a BT spokesman says they can freely copy stuff off the web because consent is implied?

Also, the cookie forgery is a violation of the Computer Misuse Act, correct? Which specific part?

Here is the blog:

http://business-openletter.blogspot.com/

Please suggest any additions.

[Dephormation]

Emma Sanderson is quoted as saying;

"To confirm our position on copyright, we consider that as a general proposition, by placing a webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied licence to reproduce/copy.
We believe that the taking of a temporary copy for the purposes of Webwise will fall within that implied licence and also believe in any event that the proposed operation of Webwise is permitted under s.28A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. So, there is no breach of copyright. "

Principal counter arguments being, Phorm don't obtain a licence to copy or use (because they don't make a separate identifiable request for the document which the author can accept or reject), and the use of the copy without licence is not fair or reasonable (because it damages the author).

s.28A won't help them. It specifically excludes computer programs, and databases, and applies to the sole purpose of onward transmission and lawful use without economic significance.

Whereas an HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) +Javascript web page is effectively a computer program for a browser, it may contain data from an ecommerce system or content management system to which 'database rights' would apply, no onward transmission between third parties occurs (the web site is not aware of and does not send the web page to Phorm), and the results of processing the copy are sold (so there is evidence of economic significance).

[rryles]

Originally Posted by Peter N

Phorm's overall technology is currently Patent Pending though is does make use of some that are already patented. A level of protection is offered whilst the patent is being considered as long as it is registered and this would almost certainly include an FOI act exemption otherwise the act would be wide open to abuse by rival companies.

Also bear in mind that patents only describe the uses and applications of the new technology in broad terms in order to qualify as an invention under the terms of the relevant acts.

Let's not get hung up on the patents and confidentiality thing. We are both on the same side after all. The fact is they think there is something that qualifies for exemption under the FOIA due to it being "Commercially confidential". That is just an excuse. There is certainly some information that could released without impinging on Phorms rights to commercial confidentiality. We've already seen FOIA responses that had names blacked out.

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Emma Sanderson is quoted as saying;

Principal counter arguments being, Phorm don't obtain a licence to copy or use (because they don't make a separate identifiable request for the document which the author can accept or reject), and the use of the copy without licence is not fair or reasonable (because it damages the author).

...and Section 28A doesn't apply where the copyrighted work is a database or computer program (such as embedded javascript).

...and an implied licence cannot exist where an explicit licence is in place (which may explicitly withhold the right to use for advertising or commercial purposes).