The Last Mile: Handcomputers Post-iPad

As anyone who has been reading my blawg for a while knows, I have been keen on the idea of a workable tablet which could be carried to court instead of files. This is particularly of interest because both the Clerk of our Circuit Court and my boss are trying to get us to the point that paper isn't needed in the courthouse. This works wonderfully for the storage of closed files, but is more difficult for ongoing case files. Laptops can somewhat fill the gap, but to use the laptops you get stuck at the desk and have to type notes. You really need a tablet which you can carry with you so that you can pop up .pdf's and documents in a case file, take written notes when you are standing at the bench or podium, and use it to read your notes for openings and closings while you are standing in front of the jury.

So, I am really looking forward to a real working tablet. To this point, I have been most impressed with the enTourage eDGe which has a goofy name and is still too heavy and bulky at 3+ pounds (seems light until you carry it in replacement for a paper tablet), but has much more functionality than anything else I've seen.

Now Apple joins the race. I've been looking forward to this for a while because Apple usually tries to be innovative when it develops a new product. Of course, I also carry prejudices with me which caused me to expect the Apple tablet to be too expensive and too locked in to Apple programs (i.e. iTunes). Comes now the Apple "iPad."

It's an unfortunate name, which has led to a lot of jokes, most in the vein of the one which Mad TV did years before Apple ever thought of this tablet.

There was an initial flush of Apple fanboys talking about how wonderful this device is. Here's the uber-maven of tech Leo Laporte gushing about the device (bracketed by Tekzilla).

Then came the almost immediate and large backlash pointing out all the flaws of the device. This one by Molly Wood, via the Buzz Report, has a number of them (and is funner to listen to than most).

The Good: At a price of $499 with 16GB of memory, it sets the price point for everybody else. With it at this price, it becomes very hard for ereaders to justify their current pricing. In particular, I hope it drives down the price of items like the Sony Reader Daily Edition ($399) and the QUE proReader ($799). The proReader in particular seems badly overpriced at 8GB, even though it is impressive if all you want is a reader.

The Bad: All they did was make a big iPod touch. It will probably be a good way to read the internet and could be a good way to watch video if it supported flash (supposedly to be fixed sometime in the future by support for h264 in new HTML). It could at least have been a new type of communication device if it had a camera and microphone and did vid-phone between devices. No stylus either so that a person can write down a quick note and save it (or, continuing the new type of communication device theme, it could have allowed writing notes and sending them to another person with a tablet).

AAAaarrrrggggg!!!! I'm not sure what Apple thought it was doing when it put this product together. It doesn't look like it will work well for much of anything. Primarily, it seems to be interested in pushing against ereaders instead of actually becoming a working hand computer. It's sad, but the last company to do that really well is probably still Palm. I'm still waiting for the somebody to get it right.

[ADDITION] The coolness offensive has begun:

.

A comeback for guarantees?

This Bloomberg piece on the state of the art market includes the following:

"Christie’s, along with Sotheby’s and Phillips de Pury & Co., abandoned guaranteeing minimum prices to sellers at the end of 2008. Many owners of high-value pieces, particularly contemporary works, turned to private transactions rather than risk high-value works at auction in a falling market. 'You will see guarantees coming back,' said [Christie's CEO Edward] Dolman. 'But it won’t be like the height of the market in 2007. We’ll be looking to share the risk much more. ...' Christie’s is currently discussing guarantees with certain sellers, Dolman said."

Tell me again about the "public trust" (a continuing series)

Carol Vogel's "Inside Art" column today reports that LACMA sold 16 works at Sotheby’s yesterday for $3.8 million (more than double the $1.7 million high estimate).

Remember: "once an object falls under the aegis of a museum, it is held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations."

Obama Calls Out The Supreme Court to Their Face

The following video has been spreading around the internet because, if you watch closely, you can see Justice Alito muttering "Not True" as the President calls the Supreme Court out in the State of the Union Address. However, watch it closely and you'll also see Justice Ginsberg's head snap up into a death stare as the President begins his call out. The only Justice that seemed totally unaffected by the political rabble rousing was the Chief Justice, who almost looks like he's smirking.

Reversed

At the close of his September 2007 oral ruling granting Mass MoCA summary judgment in its lawsuit against artist Christoph Büchel, District Court Judge Michael Ponsor said: "I would just say, as an admonition, not to be overly comforted by my [decision], because I would imagine if this matter goes before the First Circuit, it will be scrutinized afresh, and only a reckless person would predict what the Court of Appeals is likely to do with the very complicated issues that this cases raises."

Well, he was right about that. Today the First Circuit reversed his decision, holding that "the record permits the inference that … Museum staff members were disregarding [Büchel's] instructions and intentionally modifying 'Training Ground' in a manner that he did not approve." (Longtime readers will recall that I was one of Büchel's lawyers at the District Court level. Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts kindly stepped in to handle the appeal, along with George Conway and his team at Wachtell, Rosen, Lipton & Katz, on a pro bono basis. As is obvious from the result, they did a terrific job on the appeal.) The Court forcefully held that VARA applies to unfinished works, and clearly rejected Mass MoCA's "contention … that the unfinished installation might constitute a joint work of Büchel and the Museum." A good day for artists' rights.

Bad to Worse

The LA Times reports: "Artist Shepard Fairey is facing a criminal investigation in connection with his admitted misconduct in the ongoing legal case with the Associated Press."

Not good.

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento says: "To what extent will this affect the merits of the 'fair use' argument is unknown." But, as Ben Shefner points out, "the civil copyright case may now be the least of his worries."

Hazardous (UPDATED)

I've been meaning to flag Michael Rushton's characteristically thoughtful response to my post last week on the moral hazard argument against deaccessioning. He helpfully marshals a lot of the academic commentary on agency problems generally, though concedes "the literature on nonprofits is not as deep." His bottom line:

"In the end ... I appreciate DZ's point that we just are not yet in a position to say with accuracy whether the costs of the moral hazard I worry about exceed the benefits from flexible access to funds through deaccessioning in times of crisis. But I will maintain the cost is there, even if, under new, relaxed norms governing deaccessions, the costs would not immediately be apparent."

One quick thought in response. We already have real-world experience we can draw on to assess the effects of a permissive deaccessioning regime on museum management. U.S. museums routinely deaccession to raise money to buy more art. Is there any evidence that that leads to poor management (in the area of acquisitions or otherwise)? Does it seem to encourage "pet projects and perquisites and risky schemes that are contrary to the interests of the organization"? My understanding is that most (or at least many) European museums do not deaccession at all (not even to buy more art). Do they seem better managed than their U.S. counterparts? It would make for a fascinating research project. In any case, it's interesting that you never hear about the moral hazards of acquisition-related deaccessioning.

UPDATE: Rushton responds.