Nadya Suleman, the infamous "octomom" on welfare, has spent about $1,000 to file 2 new trademark applications to register OCTOMOM as a trademark for various goods and services. These fees are the government filing fees only, and do not include fees paid to the attorney who represents her in this matter. Now we know why she's hustling to land a reality TV show-- she's got to make some money to protect her intellectual property.

If she is granted the registrations, though, she will have to contend with an earlier-filed trademark application by a third party to register OCTOMOM for iPhone downloads. Apple's description of the game reads "Press down on Octomom's swollen belly and another adorable bundle of joy will be brought into the world."

Nadya's own trademark application identifies her as Nadya Suleman, AKA Octomom, and indicates that the mark identifies her. I guess I was wrong when I thought the nickname was snide. She has apparently embraced it.

Rick Wagoner: Triple Bonus Double Standard

The country has rarely exhibited outrage on this scale. Unprecedented protests erupted when AIG execs, the very same top dogs who made millions from the company's shell game "profits," the same brainiacs who ushered a thriving company into financial ruin, were handed million dollar bonuses out of taxpayer bailout cash. The government shrugged with disapproval, but no one lost their job or was forced to give the bonus money back (although many were shamed into it).

Then, two days ago, the administration turned its sights on the gasping-for-its-last-breath auto industry, and put in play the first double standard: No more government money unless a head gets chopped off. WHACK! Off with GM's Head! Now poor Rick Wagoner is a "sacrificial lamb" -- a victim of the double standard, where Wall Street gets a "tsk tsk" and Detroit gets government instituted reorganization. Over the past two days, hundreds of publications, bloggers, and talking heads have called the administration to task for the unlevel playing field Detroit is forced to play on. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was all over the perceived unfairness: "There's one standard for Wall Street and one standard for the average Joe and that's not fair," Granholm said on CNN's "State of the Union" TV show. .

What is the real double standard? Rick Wagoner, poor thing, is slated to receive over $23 million in bonuses from GM. That's millions of dollars more than most AIG execs got. And coming from GM, a company using government bailout cash to pay its bills, the entire bonus is a distribution of hard-earned taxpayer bailout cash. Where is the outrage demanding that Wagoner refuse this excessive compensation for his utter failure of leadership at the helm of GM?

After all, Wagoner, like the AIG execs, was at the helm, responsible for the worst-ever performance of the company. Under his stewardship, the company reported losses of $82 billion, having not logged a profit since 2004. Emergency government bailout money kept it from running out of money at the end of 2008, money which is largely gone now, three months later. When Wagoner took over as CEO in June 2000, GM's stock was trading above $70. This past week, trading closed at $3.62.

Wagoner's refusal to acknowledge what the world knew before him-- too many brands; too much emphasis on selling gas guzzlers; too little concern for the environment-- underscores ineptness and arrogance, qualities that sound pretty similar to the attributes of AIG's best and brightest. Shouldn't the public be demanding he refuse this undeserved benefit, comprised entirely of our hard earned money? If GM had been allowed to go into bankruptcy, which would have been the natural outcome without our bailout money, poor Rick Wagoner would have no bonus. He deserves exactly what the AIG execs deserved --nothing. And the public should be exercising its voice of outrage, not perpetuating the double standard by defending his "sacrificial" role.

The Ann Arbor News will cease to exist in July. I don't live in Ann Arbor, and I haven't regularly read the Ann Arbor News since I did live there, years and years ago. But there's something about knowing it's there, just like knowing Ann Arbor is there, if I want to go visit, that gives me a little feeling of comfort. Ann Arbor was where I did a lot of my growing up, went to college, went to law school, had my first baby. During all of those formative years, the Ann Arbor News was my main paper, complemented by The Michigan Daily.

These days I visit my kids who go to school there, and I only look to the Ann Arbor News to fill in facts when there's something of local importance. It's a pretty attenuated connection. But still, the news of its closing signifies the end of an era, and a sign that Ann Arbor, like the rest of Michigan, and like newspapers around the country, are in hard times.

It's the same twinge I feel when a favorite TV show ends. Not watching Thirty Something because I was too busy felt very different from not watching it because it was over. (It's true, I actually remember feeling genuinely sad when Thirty Something ended.) I miss President Bartlett's presence in my life during The West Wing days, and I miss the whole Sopranos gang.

I haven't felt bad knowing the Detroit Free Press is re-emphasizing to on-line newspapers, maybe because I am a predominantly on-line Free Press reader.

But when July comes, and it's official -- no Ann Arbor News, life will feel just a little different, one more color from the palette of my past rubbed out.

FACEBOOK'S IP GRAB

I'm just learning about Facebook, Twitter, and Social Networking sites in general. To be perfectly honest, I've been doing it in a rather clandestine fashion, given that my teenage/young adult kids have issued a fatwah on me that takes effect if they ever find out that I have created a Facebook identity. They've gone one step further and promised to kill me with their own hands if I ever even think of "friending" any of them. I know I'm pretty safe admitting here, in the privacy of my blog (which they would never be caught dead reading), that I've been doing some dabbling on Facebook and Twitter.

Forgive, for a moment, if you're an old hand at these sites. For the unenlightened, Facebook is free and open to anyone who signs up for an account. The content posted on one's site, as far as I can tell, tends to be limited to photos (of yourself, your family, your friends), and some short social commentaries in the form of personal updates and quips posted to one another's site (the posting area is called a 'Wall"). Although I haven't seen any Pulitzer-grade essays on any site yet, I do see links to websites, which undoubtedly contain copyrighted content. I know my own does. It goes without saying that all of the Facebook Pages, even those with photos only, have some intellectual property ("IP") to protect -- even if it is one's own right to privacy or publicity --the exclusive right to the commercial exploitation of your likeness or image.

Most content on your own site cannot be viewed by anyone unless they have been granted "Friend" status by you -- which requires a direct "Friend Request" --and which must be confirmed by you personally before the person can be your "Friend." Some people have thousands of "friends." Many, like my kids, have many hundreds of "Friends." Others, like people of my generation who are sort of embarrassed to be doing this anyway (and fear for their lives as parents) have more along the lines of 15 "Friends."

Individuals share links and content with one another, granting differing degrees of viewability to people based on preset Privacy Settings. At your discretion, some things can only be viewed by "Friends;" other things can reach a wider audience -- "Friends of Friends."

So what happened a few days ago to stir up such an uproar in the Facebook world?

Facebook amended its Terms of Service to give itself unbridled, uncompensated, never-ending license rights to all shared content posted on your Facebook Page -- even after the content has been deleted, or you close your account. Read the actual new language, affectionately referred to by consumer advocacy groups as "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever":


You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

That's a staggeringly far-reaching license, and unprecedented in comparable sites such as Myspace, Youtube, Yahoo, and Google. It means that Facebook can use your photos, your face, your poems, whatever, in their ads, in derivative works (a Facebook Movie?) or for any other purpose. The only apparent self limitation is their agreement not to violate your privacy settings -- meaning things you've designated as limited to "Friends" only cannot be widely exploited by Facebook.

It remains to be seen if user uproar will force Facebook to revert to its more reasonable Terms of Service. Let's hope so.

Update Feb. 18, 2009: Facebook caved and has (for now) given up its attempt to coopt all of its users' proprietary content. Keep the pressure on them. See the Terms of Use Update at the top of every home page:

Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

THIS IS A GRACIOUS EXIT?

During Bush's last days, there has been no shortage of compliments on how graciously he handled the transition. To be sure, he was polite, cordial, and maintained the expected decorum. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said in the New York Times that Bush's "Gentlemanly Goodbye" earns him "a big gold star for the way he is leaving his office."

The Bushes offered up a formal White House tour for the Obamas that even featured an opportunity for Malia and Sasha to jump on the White House beds. Too bad, though, that the Bush graciousness didn't extend to accommodating the Obama family's request to move into Blair House, the official guest residence, in time for the girls' first day of school. It was apparently more important that John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, have the full run of the 14 guest bedrooms, eight staff bedrooms, 35 bathrooms, four dining rooms, kitchen facilities, laundry and dry cleaning facilities, exercise room, flower shop, and fully equipped hair salon for his single night stay.

High fives though for the Bush people's efforts to set up a formal transition council, and for helping to expedite security checks for the Obama nominees. Make a few formal gestures, and everyone glazes over with warmth at the graciousness of the departure.

But in giving Bush his transition score card, how can we focus on the menial cordialities, while completely ignoring his utter abandonment of his duties to the country during the gravest economic disaster in all of our lifetimes? Instead of making even the most rudimentary attempts to lead our country, to calm the market jitters, or to convene insightful economic advisers, Bush was either sitting with friendly interviewers making his public relations case to outline his successes to the cameras, or traveling abroad (and dodging flying shoes) in an attempt to wallpaper over the deep fault lines in our foreign relations.

But Bush can't be accused of failing to govern these last few months -- to the contrary, Bush has been extremely busy laying hundreds of regulatory land mines in the form of last minute regulations to booby trap the incoming administration, and create far reaching damage long after Bush is history.

It will take months to uncover the extent of the fallout from Bush's de facto laws resulting from these rule changes. The outgoing administration ramped up their efforts beginning last May to pull together this package of executive branch legislation in order to have it in place by November 1, 2008 - the last date to ensure they cannot be easily reversed by the incoming administration. Obama has devoted a number of full time staff who have worked for months culling through the mess. Here's a sampling of Bush's bighearted exit activities, otherwise known as "midnight regulations":

• health care providers may deny treatment, including contraception, to anyone for moral or religious reasons;



• the Endangered Species Act will no longer require scientists to assess impact on species before permitting logging, mining, drilling, or building roads;



• limitations on truckers' driving hours will be lifted to permit up to 11 hours of driving per day;



• loaded firearms will be allowed in National Parks;



• changes in Family & Medical Leave Act will make taking leave more difficult;



• millions of acres of wild lands will be opened up to mining activities and miners' royalty obligations slashed;



• coal miners may dump waste from mountaintops into neighboring streams and valleys;



• air pollution standards near National Parks will be relaxed (despite dissent from 9 of 10 EPA regional administrators);



• uranium mining will be permitted near the Grand Canyon;



• restrictions will be lifted allowing factory farms to permit animal waste seepage into water;



• 100 major polluters exempted from monitoring lead emissions;

There are many dozens more.

Bush has been extremely industrious these last few months. In our direct line of vision, but completely outside of our reach, democracy has been sidelined while the Bush Administration has been enacting hundreds of politically controversial last minute regulations -- the kind that will have the new administration devoting hundreds of hours attempting to defuse, reverse or neutralize. Notwithstanding our remonstrations, and despite the profound impact sure to be created by many of these controversial regulations, we will be sentenced to accept the long term fallout from Bush's gracious goodbye.

cartoon printed with permission Stephff

GOOGLE THIS


As a Google devotee, I embrace the Googlization of Everything. I can remember, barely, life before Google, but I could never go back. Google Search, Gmail, Google Desktop, Google Maps, Google Earth -- these applications have changed the world, including my own, profoundly. The Google feature on my phone is like a spouse of 60 years -- helping me finish all my incomplete thoughts. Just as my grandmother drove us crazy relying on my grandfather for the other half of every thought, I infuriate my family with frequent fact checks during practically every conversation. I voted (but was voted down) to name our last puppy "Google."And I have been known to give Google-logo'd gifts to my favorite relatives.

Despite my unabashed devotion to my Google lifestyle, it's appropriate to harbor some conflicting emotions. Google, the brainchild of Larry Page, with Sergey Brin, originally became the master of the search engines by its unprecedented success at sorting through publicly available internet-based information. Few dictionaries lack entries for the verb "Google" which has come to mean internet based searching. Google has increasingly toiled to maintain its edge by expanding into ever more private information. A well informed Google user should think about a few things, even if you stay on with the Google Team.

Google permanently tracks and logs all of your search habits and your web surfing activity. It logs every one of the navigational clicks of all of its users of every one of its services, keeping track of every website visited as a result of a Google search. While it may not link it to your name in order to associate it with your personal data, the information is recorded, stored, and permanently accessible. This means that your medical searches, job searches, purchases, ads clicked, youtube videos viewed, and other potentially embarassing clicks or searches remain stored in the great Google database.

Do you use "autofill" to fill in online forms? Google Finance? Make purchases on Google Checkout? This information is stored on Google servers.

Gmail? Google permanently archives all email, G-chat conversations, and stores all Contact information.

Google Desktop? Google indexes and stores all versions of all files, including emails.

While you may not mind that Google is developing detailed profiles of its users using these data mining techniques, you might mind if a nefarious federal government were to issue subpoenas which ordered this information turned over. When Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez ordered this very information turned over, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL silently turned it over without a fight.. Thankfully, Google fought the Department of Justice and won (to a large extent) to protect searchers' privacy.

Have you ever authored a book? Google has made great strides in its attempts to scan every book ever published -- including yours. The goal is a worthy one - once scanned the full text of millions of works, many housed only in university libraries, can be searched, much like a website is searched, exponentially increasing the public's access to millions of works. In exchange for their agreement to participate, university libraries (the University of Michigan was the original partner in the project) are provided with a scanned copy of each work for preservation. The work involved in the hand-scanning of each book is enormous, and estimated to take many years at each participating university. As library shelves have been culled for purposes of scanning, a number of treasures have been discovered, such as "The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin."

What are the possible legal issues? As it applies to public domain works (expired copyright), this is a no-brainer-- there is no limit on copying. But how does the scanning project affect copyrighted works (like yours?). Because only snippets of copyrighted works are made available, it is likely that the use is consistent with the principles of fair use. But what about the full electronic version Google keeps once the work is scanned? This was one of many questions which became the subject of litigation resulting from the project, which recently settled (still awaiting court approval, expected in late '09).

Under the terms of the settlement, Google will pay $125 million to authors and publishers (the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) for the project, which is estimated to cost Google about $800 million. Unless authors specifically opt out, books that are out-of-print but still subject to copyright will be available at no charge to "preview" (a few pages), and will be available in full for a fee. In-print books require the copyright holders to "opt in" in order for search access to be made available.

Google gets the lion's share of the ad revenue and associated income from searches. But perhaps more important will be Google's right to keep each electronic copy -- think in terms of data mining. Google will be able to exponentially enhance translations, studies of speech patterns, voice recognition. We can't even imagine all of the uses Google engineers will think of.

Google's notoriety spans beyond internet innovation, and in many ways has earned Google the reputation of a good citizen of the world, notwithstanding its reputation as a privacy buster. As an employer of more than ten thousand employees, it is not insignificant that Google is regularly ranked as a Best Employer, with free meals, swimming spa, and free doctors onsite. At "Googleplex," Google's Silicon Valley headquarters, the company is decidedly "green," with PVC-free carpet and sofas, paints free of volatile organic compounds, and a commitment to buy local cafeteria food. The campus is powered, as well, by the largest commercial solar facility in the US.

Next time you casually run a search on your phone's browser, or peruse your niece's latest baby photos on Picasa, you should give a split second's thought to the Google Power at your fingertips, and at Google's.


Update: Google co-founder and University of Michigan alumnus Larry Page will deliver the spring 2009 commencement address at the University of Michigan.

DESPERATELY SEEKING A LEGACY IN THE FACE OF DISASTER


It’s not honest or fair, but it’s emblematic of the Bush Team--they insulate themselves from the constant clamor of dissent; the mountains of evidence of poorly planned and executed policy; the unanimous disapproval. They defiantly look beyond our gaze, arrogantly disregarding their failing grades, instead pointing to the nameless, shapeless jury of the future who will someday praise them. Seems we, the present, are just too small minded to fully appreciate the greatness yet.

At various times, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rice (along with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other loyal Bushies) have all conveniently and arrogantly attempted to use the media to convince the critics (i.e., most of the world) that what we may see as blunders are actually just not-yet-gelled victories. Through a loosely orchestrated campaign of exit interviews, they are barraging us with the talking points -- misinformation meant to muddle our collective memory into believing their revisionist history. They are concertedly attempting to avoid the harsh final verdict of a disastrous presidency, accusing their critics of lacking in the necessary prescience to appreciate how history will ultimately redeem them. It's been a constant refrain: forget the facts; listen to re-writes. And trust that, no matter what it looks like now, history will eventually come around to view them brilliantly.

Condaleeza Rice, perhaps more industrious than any of the others in working to salvage the failed legacy, this week refused to acknowledge the recent report by the Pew Global Attitudes Project summarizing the tarnished world view of the U.S. under Bush: "The U.S. image abroad is suffering almost everywhere." Rice refuted the conclusion with what has become a near-constant refrain: “What the Administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run, not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment."

Separately, she stressed "... you know, I really am someone who believes that you don't want to pay too much attention to today's headlines." Recognition of big achievements sometimes take a long time, she said.

Bush himself has repeatedly squirmed out of the scathing clutches of public disapproval by relying on the endorsements from the not-yet-surveyed public of the future:

"As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.”— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008.

"Look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over. I’m reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they’re still analyzing No. 1, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, make the tough choices necessary."--George W. Bush

Karl Rove, Chief Chearleader (in no small part because he wrote the playbook), summed up the we-don't-care-how-bad-it-looks soundbite in his own words in 2007: "...However, I believe history will provide a more clear-eyed verdict on this president’s leadership than the anger of current critics would suggest... President Bush will be seen as a compassionate leader who used America’s power for good."

How do they continue to make the case that, notwithstanding the mountains of evidence to the contrary, we are overlooking their successes? Simple. They misstate the facts on which they will be judged. The strategy seems surefire: the deluge of false facts will surely muddy up the history books enough that no future judges can be too hard on them.

What may confuse the judges of the future? Consider:

September 11 "came out of nowhere," ignoring the memo weeks prior titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

The claims that the Taliban was eliminated in just a few short weeks.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was not their doing-- it was done at the request of the Navy, not the White House.

The WMD intelligence? Faulty, but not their fault.

The cost of the war? Try to forget the pre-war predictions that it would total a few billion dollars, instead of the few trillion it has turned into.

Billions of dollars were misplaced in Iraq? The administration has no comment.

Greeted as liberators? Grateful to our presence in Iraq? Throwing shoes at our President is a sign they are a lot freer in Iraq, says Laura Bush.

With all due respect to our future historians, Bush should be judged today, using the unaltered facts. He deserves to be remembered for the calamitous outcome of the 43rd Presidency. Like the 98% of historians surveyed who rated Bush's presidency as a "failure," like the 61% of them who rate him as the worst president ever, we do not need a crystal ball to tell us how to judge this president.