I recently read The Victorian Internet by Tom Standage. It's a brief history about the technical development of the telegraph, developments in telegraph operations, its uses, its rise, and its eventual decline. It particularly goes into the various ways that optical and then electrical telegraph systems were developed by different independent inventors, the difficulties in laying cables for long-distance telegraphy, and the ramifications of the telegraph for business, politics, military actions, newspapers, and day-to-day communications among ordinary people (despite the usual hype of that time about how instant communication would bring people together and effect world peace), comparing these issues to the issues people care about with regard to the Internet, given their similar network structures (though do note that this book was written in the late 1990s, so the author couldn't have even imagined things like Google, Facebook, or Twitter at that time). It's a short book that is a fairly engaging and fast-paced read throughout, so I'd recommend it; my only minor complaint is that the discussion of messaging through pneumatic tubes, while certainly relevant to the chronological history of the telegraph, seems to be a bit of a distraction from the main point of how relatable the 19th century telegraph system would be to users of today's Internet. Follow the jump to see a few more points about the book.
Showing posts with label patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patent. Show all posts
2012-08-24
Samsung versus Apple
I wasn't planning on posting anything this week, but I've read a few news posts that Samsung has lost against Apple and must now pay $1 billion in damages for patent infringement. If this is indeed true (and I sincerely hope it isn't, because while I am not necessarily a Samsung fanboy, what Apple has done is beyond outrageous), this really gets my goat.
I hope Samsung appeals this. All of the arguments for why the case is ridiculous have been done to death, so I won't repeat them here. If this ruling stands even upon appeal after appeal, that'll basically mean that only Apple will control the smartphone market. But now Steve Jobs is gone, and I've noticed as a result that some of their new product releases haven't exactly been groundbreaking; plus, their new advertisements on TV (which I've been able to see since coming home for a short break) are pretty awful in their cheesiness and are nothing like what Steve Jobs would have put out there. So this means that the Apple-dominated smartphone market will stagnate. I'm going to guess that while the cult of Apple will keep drooling over every new product release, eventually regular people will wise up to the lack of innovation at Apple and stop buying said products. But while that would make it amusing for me to watch Apple fall in such a way, it won't change the fact that Apple's monopoly of the smartphone market is essentially codified in law. They have essentially set a nuclear strike on the smartphone market, so that if they should fail, so should everyone else.
Oh, who am I kidding? I'll stop prognosticating ridiculous scenarios and be satisfied with the fact that I have a perfectly functional LG dumbphone that can talk, text, and take pictures.
I hope Samsung appeals this. All of the arguments for why the case is ridiculous have been done to death, so I won't repeat them here. If this ruling stands even upon appeal after appeal, that'll basically mean that only Apple will control the smartphone market. But now Steve Jobs is gone, and I've noticed as a result that some of their new product releases haven't exactly been groundbreaking; plus, their new advertisements on TV (which I've been able to see since coming home for a short break) are pretty awful in their cheesiness and are nothing like what Steve Jobs would have put out there. So this means that the Apple-dominated smartphone market will stagnate. I'm going to guess that while the cult of Apple will keep drooling over every new product release, eventually regular people will wise up to the lack of innovation at Apple and stop buying said products. But while that would make it amusing for me to watch Apple fall in such a way, it won't change the fact that Apple's monopoly of the smartphone market is essentially codified in law. They have essentially set a nuclear strike on the smartphone market, so that if they should fail, so should everyone else.
Oh, who am I kidding? I'll stop prognosticating ridiculous scenarios and be satisfied with the fact that I have a perfectly functional LG dumbphone that can talk, text, and take pictures.
2011-02-17
Lack of Patents Helped Even in the 19th Century US
This semester my humanities class is titled "Technology in American History". We first started talking about the various meanings and connotations of the world "technology" and how these are significant. Since then, we've been talking about technologies that the Native Americans and early European settlers used, progressing all the way to early 19th century American technology. Today's lecture was on the role of the government in technological developments at that time.
One of the parts I found interesting in today's lecture was that in the early- to mid-19th century, techniques used in the manufacturing of guns were later applied to the manufacturing of seemingly unrelated things, like sewing machines (Remington at one point was a huge manufacturer of both sewing machines and rifles), pocket-watches, and early automobiles. Yet, these processes had no patents on them, and that's because this was all technology adapted from what was being done in the US national armories at Harpers Ferry and Springfield. Basically, the government allowed inventors and entrepreneurs full, unrestricted access to the armories provided that what they created wouldn't be patented — or, if they were patented, which is what happened in one or two isolated cases, the patent-holder(s) couldn't collect any royalties. Because of that, competition was allowed to come about, prices dropped, more innovation was being made, and the consumers won for it.
Yes, it is true that back then, it was quite a bit more costly to try to innovate something, and even afterwards, it was costly to produce it, so patents did help mitigate those costs. Now, however, especially in the software and pharmaceutical industries, patents are preventing real competition from coming about and prices are being held artificially high, and companies don't have any incentive to further innovate because they have a monopoly. And even then, there's evidence with the innovations of people like James Watt and Thomas Edison that inventors even then kept prices artificially high and didn't innovate as much because of the legal monopoly.
Also, my professor did talk about his sort of central thesis in his view of the government and technology: he sees that in most major technological developments, it's "government in, then government out". While this has been true for most major things like airplanes and the Internet itself, the fact is that patents are really just government-granted and enforced monopolies. This means that when a private inventor applies for a pattern, government comes in but doesn't go out for quite a while, especially considering all the patent infringement-related lawsuits (which involve the judicial branch of the government) in the last decade or so. Then again, such lawsuits dated back even then, and they were just as costly then as they are now.
One of the parts I found interesting in today's lecture was that in the early- to mid-19th century, techniques used in the manufacturing of guns were later applied to the manufacturing of seemingly unrelated things, like sewing machines (Remington at one point was a huge manufacturer of both sewing machines and rifles), pocket-watches, and early automobiles. Yet, these processes had no patents on them, and that's because this was all technology adapted from what was being done in the US national armories at Harpers Ferry and Springfield. Basically, the government allowed inventors and entrepreneurs full, unrestricted access to the armories provided that what they created wouldn't be patented — or, if they were patented, which is what happened in one or two isolated cases, the patent-holder(s) couldn't collect any royalties. Because of that, competition was allowed to come about, prices dropped, more innovation was being made, and the consumers won for it.
Yes, it is true that back then, it was quite a bit more costly to try to innovate something, and even afterwards, it was costly to produce it, so patents did help mitigate those costs. Now, however, especially in the software and pharmaceutical industries, patents are preventing real competition from coming about and prices are being held artificially high, and companies don't have any incentive to further innovate because they have a monopoly. And even then, there's evidence with the innovations of people like James Watt and Thomas Edison that inventors even then kept prices artificially high and didn't innovate as much because of the legal monopoly.
Also, my professor did talk about his sort of central thesis in his view of the government and technology: he sees that in most major technological developments, it's "government in, then government out". While this has been true for most major things like airplanes and the Internet itself, the fact is that patents are really just government-granted and enforced monopolies. This means that when a private inventor applies for a pattern, government comes in but doesn't go out for quite a while, especially considering all the patent infringement-related lawsuits (which involve the judicial branch of the government) in the last decade or so. Then again, such lawsuits dated back even then, and they were just as costly then as they are now.
2011-01-09
Chinese Company Copying the Burj Khalifa
There's a relatively new article (Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News) reporting on how Chinese land developers are looking to build a skyscraper that rips off of the design of Dubai's Burj Khalifa (formerly Burj Dubai). I've seen Chinese manufacturers use (without much modification) foreign competitors' designs before, but this takes it to a level I haven't seen before.
There are two questions I have upon seeing this: how much harm will such blatant copying really do, and what's the best way to prevent it from happening in the future?
Skyscrapers have become icons of cities and their countries. The Eiffel Tower stands for Paris and all of France, as does the Empire State Building for New York City and the US as well as (now) the Burj Khalifa for Dubai and the UAE. As far as I know, China has yet to build such an iconic skyscraper (though it has built plenty of skyscrapers in general in the recent past); maybe it's just me, but I can't associate any particular tall structure with China. So it seems to me a little questionable that the new (presumably) tallest structure in Beijing should be a copycat of another existing structure.
But how much economic harm does Chinese copying really do? Let's look at movies: though China has become [in]famous for rampant DVD piracy, the US movie industry's revenues and profits have increased year after year; even the MPAA admits as much. So clearly, that can't be an issue. Next, let's look at cars: at one point, Chinese automaker Chery sold a car called the QQ that was identical (without a manufacturing license) to GM's Chevrolet Matiz; not only did they look extraordinarily similar, but even large parts like doors were interchangeable. (GM threatened to sue Chery for patent infringement, and Chery responded by changing the design significantly a couple years later.) Yet, through it all, the Chevrolet Matiz continued to sell well in China regardless of Chery's actions. (This is also because, as far as I know, in China, domestic automakers only cater to the lower end of the market, while Chinese consumers prefer foreign cars higher up the spectrum. Thus, the Chevrolet Matiz had a higher perception of quality among consumers than the Chery QQ. Then again, I don't know how the two cars were priced relative to one another when this fiasco went on.) So here as well it's safe to say that copying didn't really negatively affect other companies (except for the money lost through the accompanying lawsuit(s)) or the Chinese car market on the whole. Now let's look at skyscrapers themselves: the article says that the Burj Khalifa suffered from construction issues (which negatively affected perceptions of visitors/tourists and potential lessees) and "by the autumn, a mere 8 percent of the Burj Khalifa's apartments were occupied, [while rents] had fallen by almost half." This all happened before Chinese developers planned to erect a copycat of that tower in Beijing. This of course remains to be seen, but I don't believe the Beijing tower will actually gain business at the expense of the Burj Khalifa, simply because there are other factors in play, chiefly factors relating to the surrounding city (e.g. business environment, laws, other businesses/attractions present, et cetera). They aren't just going to compete over the design and facilities over the towers themselves.
But given that this will likely become an icon of Beijing, it would be nicer if the tower was an original design. So what's going to stop such copying in the future? Well, recent articles in places like Slashdot and TechDirt show that Chinese companies and government entities are sourcing (and sometimes copying without licenses) foreign technologies to build their infrastructure and patenting the products along the way. This is to go along with the US's repeated demands to comply with IP laws. Yet, with these patents in place, the US can't compete, and China will continue such practices to their own benefit. It's clear that Chinese businesses only comply with international IP laws when it suits them (and flagrantly tramples over them otherwise). Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't think anything is going to stop them now.
There are two questions I have upon seeing this: how much harm will such blatant copying really do, and what's the best way to prevent it from happening in the future?
Skyscrapers have become icons of cities and their countries. The Eiffel Tower stands for Paris and all of France, as does the Empire State Building for New York City and the US as well as (now) the Burj Khalifa for Dubai and the UAE. As far as I know, China has yet to build such an iconic skyscraper (though it has built plenty of skyscrapers in general in the recent past); maybe it's just me, but I can't associate any particular tall structure with China. So it seems to me a little questionable that the new (presumably) tallest structure in Beijing should be a copycat of another existing structure.
But how much economic harm does Chinese copying really do? Let's look at movies: though China has become [in]famous for rampant DVD piracy, the US movie industry's revenues and profits have increased year after year; even the MPAA admits as much. So clearly, that can't be an issue. Next, let's look at cars: at one point, Chinese automaker Chery sold a car called the QQ that was identical (without a manufacturing license) to GM's Chevrolet Matiz; not only did they look extraordinarily similar, but even large parts like doors were interchangeable. (GM threatened to sue Chery for patent infringement, and Chery responded by changing the design significantly a couple years later.) Yet, through it all, the Chevrolet Matiz continued to sell well in China regardless of Chery's actions. (This is also because, as far as I know, in China, domestic automakers only cater to the lower end of the market, while Chinese consumers prefer foreign cars higher up the spectrum. Thus, the Chevrolet Matiz had a higher perception of quality among consumers than the Chery QQ. Then again, I don't know how the two cars were priced relative to one another when this fiasco went on.) So here as well it's safe to say that copying didn't really negatively affect other companies (except for the money lost through the accompanying lawsuit(s)) or the Chinese car market on the whole. Now let's look at skyscrapers themselves: the article says that the Burj Khalifa suffered from construction issues (which negatively affected perceptions of visitors/tourists and potential lessees) and "by the autumn, a mere 8 percent of the Burj Khalifa's apartments were occupied, [while rents] had fallen by almost half." This all happened before Chinese developers planned to erect a copycat of that tower in Beijing. This of course remains to be seen, but I don't believe the Beijing tower will actually gain business at the expense of the Burj Khalifa, simply because there are other factors in play, chiefly factors relating to the surrounding city (e.g. business environment, laws, other businesses/attractions present, et cetera). They aren't just going to compete over the design and facilities over the towers themselves.
But given that this will likely become an icon of Beijing, it would be nicer if the tower was an original design. So what's going to stop such copying in the future? Well, recent articles in places like Slashdot and TechDirt show that Chinese companies and government entities are sourcing (and sometimes copying without licenses) foreign technologies to build their infrastructure and patenting the products along the way. This is to go along with the US's repeated demands to comply with IP laws. Yet, with these patents in place, the US can't compete, and China will continue such practices to their own benefit. It's clear that Chinese businesses only comply with international IP laws when it suits them (and flagrantly tramples over them otherwise). Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't think anything is going to stop them now.
2010-10-28
Microsoft's Latest Scare Tactics as of 2010 October 28
For the last few years, Microsoft has been making vague threats to sue vendors of Linux-based products for infringing on Microsoft's patents. When Microsoft is asked to elaborate on what exactly is being infringed, it suffers a convenient case of amnesia. In any case, while it has bullied a few companies (first Novell over SUSE, now companies like HTC over Android) into paying excessive royalty fees for no reason, it has never made good on its threats to sue anyone, probably because it would be clear as day just how ridiculous Microsoft's infringement claims really are.
It seems like now, as this article (Adam Hwang, Digitimes) points out, Microsoft could possibly make good on this, although it seems like it's just bullying companies into paying royalty fees as opposed to outright suing. It's charging AsusTEK and Acer royalty fees for the very vague "email, multimedia, and other" functions just to make sure they don't sell netbooks or tablets with Android or Chrome OS on them. It would be a shame if these companies submitted to Microsoft's demand, but it'll probably happen considering that the same thing happened to Novell and HTC; then again, consumers are now more aware than ever of alternatives to Microsoft Windows, so I think they may actually seek out and demand Android and Chrome OS devices anyway. Let's see how this turns out.
It seems like now, as this article (Adam Hwang, Digitimes) points out, Microsoft could possibly make good on this, although it seems like it's just bullying companies into paying royalty fees as opposed to outright suing. It's charging AsusTEK and Acer royalty fees for the very vague "email, multimedia, and other" functions just to make sure they don't sell netbooks or tablets with Android or Chrome OS on them. It would be a shame if these companies submitted to Microsoft's demand, but it'll probably happen considering that the same thing happened to Novell and HTC; then again, consumers are now more aware than ever of alternatives to Microsoft Windows, so I think they may actually seek out and demand Android and Chrome OS devices anyway. Let's see how this turns out.
2010-10-13
FOLLOW-UP: Microsoft's Ironic Shutdown Patent
This isn't a true follow-up in the sense that it isn't about the patent which I talked about earlier. It has to do with something that happened to me a few days ago when I needed to boot into Microsoft Windows 7 to relax and play some of my computer games (that don't work on WINE in Linux).
As usual, Windows needed to download and install updates and patches, and it needed to restart afterwards to make the updates effective. As usual, I chose to ignore the warnings and restart until the next nagging reminder came along. This particular warning asked me how long I wanted to postpone the restart for, so when I chose "1 hour", I assumed that an hour later, there would be a message box warning me of the impending restart procedure and asking me if I wanted to go ahead or postpone it again. Thinking nothing of this, I went ahead and started playing. An hour later, the game screen suddenly became black, and the cursor disappeared; next thing I know is the screen is showing the shutdown screen with a message about updates being downloaded and installed. That's right: Microsoft Windows shut down an hour later without asking me again just to install updates. I wasn't able to save my game, so I lost everything past the previous save point.
Really, Microsoft? Does the thing really need to be that intrusive? There's not really a whole lot more I can say about this without degenerating into a steaming, sputtering wreck (which is not something I do often); please bear with me.
As usual, Windows needed to download and install updates and patches, and it needed to restart afterwards to make the updates effective. As usual, I chose to ignore the warnings and restart until the next nagging reminder came along. This particular warning asked me how long I wanted to postpone the restart for, so when I chose "1 hour", I assumed that an hour later, there would be a message box warning me of the impending restart procedure and asking me if I wanted to go ahead or postpone it again. Thinking nothing of this, I went ahead and started playing. An hour later, the game screen suddenly became black, and the cursor disappeared; next thing I know is the screen is showing the shutdown screen with a message about updates being downloaded and installed. That's right: Microsoft Windows shut down an hour later without asking me again just to install updates. I wasn't able to save my game, so I lost everything past the previous save point.
Really, Microsoft? Does the thing really need to be that intrusive? There's not really a whole lot more I can say about this without degenerating into a steaming, sputtering wreck (which is not something I do often); please bear with me.
2010-10-07
FOLLOW-UP: Six Divided by Two is Patented
A few weeks ago, I wrote about a new IBM patent on estimating the average weight of passengers in a vehicle. Well, I just read a TechDirt article about an even more frivolous patent by IBM for similar things. Basically, this patents the measurement of a car's speed and the division of 60 mi/hr by the speed to determine the refresh rate of a billboard at that location.
How is this even more ridiculous than the last one? The last one didn't explicitly use a symbolic formula; it just described the calculation in words. Here, an explicit symbolic formula is given. I would say that goes against every precedent saying that mathematical formulas (especially ones so simple as this one) are not patentable. The person who submitted this tip to TechDirt asked what I also asked upon reading the introduction: would the refresh rate be infinite if traffic was backed up? There doesn't appear to be any sort of backup plan (no pun intended) in the abstract of the patent, though further down in the details there vaguely does appear to be some provision of this sort.
There is much more for me to say about this. I think the ridiculousness of the patent filing speaks for itself. All I hope is that the USPTO rejects this one, but at that rate, I might as well hope to find a magnetic monopole.
How is this even more ridiculous than the last one? The last one didn't explicitly use a symbolic formula; it just described the calculation in words. Here, an explicit symbolic formula is given. I would say that goes against every precedent saying that mathematical formulas (especially ones so simple as this one) are not patentable. The person who submitted this tip to TechDirt asked what I also asked upon reading the introduction: would the refresh rate be infinite if traffic was backed up? There doesn't appear to be any sort of backup plan (no pun intended) in the abstract of the patent, though further down in the details there vaguely does appear to be some provision of this sort.
There is much more for me to say about this. I think the ridiculousness of the patent filing speaks for itself. All I hope is that the USPTO rejects this one, but at that rate, I might as well hope to find a magnetic monopole.
2010-10-04
Isaac Newton, Progress, and Patents
In my physics recitation class today, our recitation leader briefly digressed from the material at hand to discuss the history of differential calculus and the conflict between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. Basically, Newton claimed to have invented differential calculus first (although, as with any other "invention", neither can truly claim to have invented calculus from scratch as they were building on the work of mathematicians before them (and I don't just mean 1 + 1 = 2 — I mean things like infinite series and tangent lines)), but as he kept his work secret for decades, he ended up publishing his work on calculus after Leibniz published his work. While both were initially on good terms, as Newton became more possessive of his own work and convinced of his own originality, the debate became progressively more heated, with Newton and his supporters accusing Leibniz of plagiarism. Follow the jump to read more.
2010-09-12
Six Divided by Two is Patented
I was reading through TechDirt when I came across this (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) article summarizing how IBM has filed a patent for determining how many passengers are in a vehicle. Naturally, I was a little skeptical that a company would try to patent something so trivial, so I thought the link might be to a less credible rumormill site. Instead, following the link took me to the actual patent filing, where I could see the details of the patent in all of its silliness. This is in stark contrast to the Apple patent filing (which I have written about before) which is downright creepy (but, in all fairness, rather clever and probably original). I figured that at least IBM would have a system that detects the motion and direction of passengers through the doors to determine who has entered and exited to then determine the weight of the bus.
Is it that complicated? Let me ask you this: should 6 divided by 2 be patented?
Why do I say that? The actual patent is nothing more than sifting through existing data showing seasonal average weights, weighing the bus when empty and filled, taking the difference and dividing by the appropriate average weight to arrive at a probable head count. Really?
This is nothing more than primary school subtraction and division. The only other things the patent calls for are a computer system and a GUI to assist in this calculation. There are a couple of sensors on the vehicle hooked up to the computer measuring the weights of various parts of the vehicle, so that these can be subtracted from the total weight reading.
I seriously hope that the courts don't let this one get through, but given their past actions, I think if someone mentions that mathematical operations (and this is one, rather than a complex piece of software) are not patentable, the judges are going to suffer collective amnesia.
Is it that complicated? Let me ask you this: should 6 divided by 2 be patented?
Why do I say that? The actual patent is nothing more than sifting through existing data showing seasonal average weights, weighing the bus when empty and filled, taking the difference and dividing by the appropriate average weight to arrive at a probable head count. Really?
This is nothing more than primary school subtraction and division. The only other things the patent calls for are a computer system and a GUI to assist in this calculation. There are a couple of sensors on the vehicle hooked up to the computer measuring the weights of various parts of the vehicle, so that these can be subtracted from the total weight reading.
I seriously hope that the courts don't let this one get through, but given their past actions, I think if someone mentions that mathematical operations (and this is one, rather than a complex piece of software) are not patentable, the judges are going to suffer collective amnesia.
2010-09-10
Righthaven Copyright Suits are like Property Repossession in the Extreme
Why do I say this? (It's from this article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt).) Read on, dear readers.
I have previously written about patent troll company Intellectual Ventures and how they claim to invent new things when all they do (aside from not inventing a single thing) is buy other companies' patents for the sole purpose of suing people who infringe upon those patents. Well, that concept seems to have been extended to Righthaven, which is a copyright troll. All it does is buy newspaper articles' copyrights for the sole purpose of suing people who infringe upon these copyrights, and it, unlike Intellectual Ventures, seems totally honest about its motives — instead of couching its actions in language about how newspapers cannot afford to lose in the fight against copyright infringement and piracy, its CEO essentially says straight up that it's out to make the big bucks by filing as many lawsuits as possible. Furthermore, it's going after people who write content online who copy even small portions (e.g. sentences, small paragraphs) of published articles and give proper attribution (and who link back to the original articles); I think this is a violation of the ideas of fair use and attribution, all for the purpose of making money.
So what's the news here? Well, not only is Righthaven suing the pants off of some websites that republish small parts of articles and attribute and link to them properly, it's even demanding that these sites hand over their domain names. What?
The TechDirt article is probably right (or so I hope) that this is most likely a scare tactic, in that most websites would rather settle the lawsuit out-of-court than fight, lose, and actually give up the domain name, as almost all defendants have settled out of court, while none have actually ceded their domain names. That said, assume for a moment that Righthaven is serious about its demands.
What does this mean? Imagine for a moment that Jill stole a lamp from a store to decorate his house. The analog of what Righthaven is doing is if after Jill returned the lamp to the store (under the force of the law) and served his jail time, the store owner further demanded possession of Jill's entire house and its contents.
No, that isn't quite accurate either. Imagine again that instead of Jill stealing a lamp, Jill borrowed a screwdriver from Dave to fix Bonnie's bicycle, told Dave what she was going to use the screwdriver for and when she would return it, and told Bonnie who the owner of the screwdriver was and when she would return it. Righthaven's actions are like Dave accusing Jill of stealing the screwdriver, taking her to court for it, and demanding repossession of both Jill's house and Bonnie's bicycle.
Is that a good analogy? It's something I thought of at the spur of the moment, so let me know how I can improve on this in the comments. In any case, isn't the whole sage just ridiculous?
I have previously written about patent troll company Intellectual Ventures and how they claim to invent new things when all they do (aside from not inventing a single thing) is buy other companies' patents for the sole purpose of suing people who infringe upon those patents. Well, that concept seems to have been extended to Righthaven, which is a copyright troll. All it does is buy newspaper articles' copyrights for the sole purpose of suing people who infringe upon these copyrights, and it, unlike Intellectual Ventures, seems totally honest about its motives — instead of couching its actions in language about how newspapers cannot afford to lose in the fight against copyright infringement and piracy, its CEO essentially says straight up that it's out to make the big bucks by filing as many lawsuits as possible. Furthermore, it's going after people who write content online who copy even small portions (e.g. sentences, small paragraphs) of published articles and give proper attribution (and who link back to the original articles); I think this is a violation of the ideas of fair use and attribution, all for the purpose of making money.
So what's the news here? Well, not only is Righthaven suing the pants off of some websites that republish small parts of articles and attribute and link to them properly, it's even demanding that these sites hand over their domain names. What?
The TechDirt article is probably right (or so I hope) that this is most likely a scare tactic, in that most websites would rather settle the lawsuit out-of-court than fight, lose, and actually give up the domain name, as almost all defendants have settled out of court, while none have actually ceded their domain names. That said, assume for a moment that Righthaven is serious about its demands.
What does this mean? Imagine for a moment that Jill stole a lamp from a store to decorate his house. The analog of what Righthaven is doing is if after Jill returned the lamp to the store (under the force of the law) and served his jail time, the store owner further demanded possession of Jill's entire house and its contents.
No, that isn't quite accurate either. Imagine again that instead of Jill stealing a lamp, Jill borrowed a screwdriver from Dave to fix Bonnie's bicycle, told Dave what she was going to use the screwdriver for and when she would return it, and told Bonnie who the owner of the screwdriver was and when she would return it. Righthaven's actions are like Dave accusing Jill of stealing the screwdriver, taking her to court for it, and demanding repossession of both Jill's house and Bonnie's bicycle.
Is that a good analogy? It's something I thought of at the spur of the moment, so let me know how I can improve on this in the comments. In any case, isn't the whole sage just ridiculous?
2010-09-01
Microsoft's Ironic Shutdown Patent
I got this article (Wolfgang Gruener, ConceivablyTech) from a Slashdot link.
This patent actually amuses me for several reasons. First, it shows just how (and why) the shutdown process on Microsoft Windows is so long and complicated. As it turns out, if there are graphical programs running, there are 3 different ways for the application to be terminated by force and the shutdown process restarted. That is astounding by itself, but not surprising to many people who use Microsoft Windows regularly. Even afterwards, when a top-level program is hung up, there is a way to abort the shutdown process altogether; that's another factor in the process taking so long.
The author of the article laments the absence of a patent that just shuts the system down (ideally in 5 seconds or so). For one, I would argue against a patent for that, as that would be too simple and wide-ranging to be patentable. Secondly, the diagram in the article leaves out one last reason for shutdown taking so long (which is so well-illustrated in this Linux in Exile blog post): automatic updates which are downloaded and installed after the shutdown button is clicked (but, of course, before the system actually shuts down). So let me add in a corollary to the flowchart provided, a sort of mini-flowchart, if you will.
As the Linux in Exile post said, the Windows Update process holds the computer hostage during shutdown, and given the relatively high frequency of updates that need to be installed at shutdown, this is a major contributor to long shutdown times (especially considering that there are a lot of Microsoft Windows users who do not have access to broadband).
Well, there you have it: Microsoft's long shutdown times demystified. You know what? Let them have the patent. Why would anyone else want to license such a long and complicated shutdown procedure anyway?
This patent actually amuses me for several reasons. First, it shows just how (and why) the shutdown process on Microsoft Windows is so long and complicated. As it turns out, if there are graphical programs running, there are 3 different ways for the application to be terminated by force and the shutdown process restarted. That is astounding by itself, but not surprising to many people who use Microsoft Windows regularly. Even afterwards, when a top-level program is hung up, there is a way to abort the shutdown process altogether; that's another factor in the process taking so long.
The author of the article laments the absence of a patent that just shuts the system down (ideally in 5 seconds or so). For one, I would argue against a patent for that, as that would be too simple and wide-ranging to be patentable. Secondly, the diagram in the article leaves out one last reason for shutdown taking so long (which is so well-illustrated in this Linux in Exile blog post): automatic updates which are downloaded and installed after the shutdown button is clicked (but, of course, before the system actually shuts down). So let me add in a corollary to the flowchart provided, a sort of mini-flowchart, if you will.
Well, there you have it: Microsoft's long shutdown times demystified. You know what? Let them have the patent. Why would anyone else want to license such a long and complicated shutdown procedure anyway?
2010-08-28
Apple Knows Your Heart Rate
You're probably thinking, "No it doesn't! That's ridiculous!"
It is ridiculous, but it might come true soon.
I was going through some news articles when I came across an article in the EFF linking to this gem of a patent filing. Apple, in a move to counter the government's new rules permitting the jailbreaking of phones for non-copyright infringing purposes (among other things), still wants essentially total control over the products they sell to consumers. This patent basically details all of the ways that they plan to catch unauthorized users from using the product and unauthorized software (e.g. copied music) from getting onto the product. It includes ways of identifying unauthorized users or usage such as proximity sensors, voice recognition, facial recognition, and heartbeat recognition. WHAT?
I can use other people as cover for the proximity sensors. I can change my voice/tone to fool the voice recognition. I can even wear masks to avoid facial recognition. But how am I supposed to mess with my heartbeat? The worst part in that is that Apple isn't using the heartbeat sensor to detect changes in a person's heartbeat (that could quickly turn for the worse); it's using those sensors solely to prevent people from using Apple products in ways that Apple doesn't like.
People, please vote with your wallets and stay away from Apple products! Apple seems to have no reservations about turning such data over to the US government, and with the US government (initiated by the MPAA, RIAA, and other such organizations and companies) looking to implement even more draconian restrictions on users' technology and files, the consumer is being demonized here. If people continue to buy Apple products, Apple will then have enough money to make new iPhones and iPods that are able to detect users' heartbeats (among other things); if you also think that this is ridiculous and somewhat creepy, stay away from Apple!
It is ridiculous, but it might come true soon.
I was going through some news articles when I came across an article in the EFF linking to this gem of a patent filing. Apple, in a move to counter the government's new rules permitting the jailbreaking of phones for non-copyright infringing purposes (among other things), still wants essentially total control over the products they sell to consumers. This patent basically details all of the ways that they plan to catch unauthorized users from using the product and unauthorized software (e.g. copied music) from getting onto the product. It includes ways of identifying unauthorized users or usage such as proximity sensors, voice recognition, facial recognition, and heartbeat recognition. WHAT?
I can use other people as cover for the proximity sensors. I can change my voice/tone to fool the voice recognition. I can even wear masks to avoid facial recognition. But how am I supposed to mess with my heartbeat? The worst part in that is that Apple isn't using the heartbeat sensor to detect changes in a person's heartbeat (that could quickly turn for the worse); it's using those sensors solely to prevent people from using Apple products in ways that Apple doesn't like.
People, please vote with your wallets and stay away from Apple products! Apple seems to have no reservations about turning such data over to the US government, and with the US government (initiated by the MPAA, RIAA, and other such organizations and companies) looking to implement even more draconian restrictions on users' technology and files, the consumer is being demonized here. If people continue to buy Apple products, Apple will then have enough money to make new iPhones and iPods that are able to detect users' heartbeats (among other things); if you also think that this is ridiculous and somewhat creepy, stay away from Apple!
2010-06-20
Patenting Yoga is Patently Stupid
Or is it?
It comes from an article I read yesterday in the ([gasp] PRINT!) newspaper. It deals with the commercialization of yoga and the patenting of yogic asanas in the US.
The article says that many asanas are patented in the US, of course just to make a bigger buck. In India, these same asanas cannot be patented as they qualify as "traditional knowledge and methods" (which cannot be commercialized). The problem, of course, is that the US's patent laws preempt all other countries' patent laws, so this may (unfortunately) change in India as well. Thankfully, as it stands, yogic asanas cannot be patented. To ensure that this is so, many (both religious and secular) practitioners of yoga are compiling libraries of asanas and having them approved as "traditional knowledge" to ensure that they can never be patented in India.
I applaud this measure. Sure, companies need to make a buck somehow. But what about those people who practice yoga through traditional means instead of going to a company's yoga program? Would they be patent violators?
Of course, the same goes for the commercialization of ayurveda and basmati rice. As both are part of traditional Indian culture, they will undoubtedly be protected at least initially in India, but not in the US. In fact, ayurveda already goes under several different trademarked names in the US, while basmati rice has been patented by an agricultural company (oh, the gall!). The problem eventually becomes, in each case, the US's broader patent laws causing other countries legislating to achieve parity in the scope of patents. This means, then, that traditional practitioners of ayurveda would eventually be considered patent violators; something similar to the effort to stop the patenting of yogic asanas would need to be undertaken here. The case of basmati rice is more serious; farmers of basmati rice in India who already make pretty meager livelihoods (at best) would be completely put out of business.
It comes from an article I read yesterday in the ([gasp] PRINT!) newspaper. It deals with the commercialization of yoga and the patenting of yogic asanas in the US.
The article says that many asanas are patented in the US, of course just to make a bigger buck. In India, these same asanas cannot be patented as they qualify as "traditional knowledge and methods" (which cannot be commercialized). The problem, of course, is that the US's patent laws preempt all other countries' patent laws, so this may (unfortunately) change in India as well. Thankfully, as it stands, yogic asanas cannot be patented. To ensure that this is so, many (both religious and secular) practitioners of yoga are compiling libraries of asanas and having them approved as "traditional knowledge" to ensure that they can never be patented in India.
I applaud this measure. Sure, companies need to make a buck somehow. But what about those people who practice yoga through traditional means instead of going to a company's yoga program? Would they be patent violators?
Of course, the same goes for the commercialization of ayurveda and basmati rice. As both are part of traditional Indian culture, they will undoubtedly be protected at least initially in India, but not in the US. In fact, ayurveda already goes under several different trademarked names in the US, while basmati rice has been patented by an agricultural company (oh, the gall!). The problem eventually becomes, in each case, the US's broader patent laws causing other countries legislating to achieve parity in the scope of patents. This means, then, that traditional practitioners of ayurveda would eventually be considered patent violators; something similar to the effort to stop the patenting of yogic asanas would need to be undertaken here. The case of basmati rice is more serious; farmers of basmati rice in India who already make pretty meager livelihoods (at best) would be completely put out of business.
2010-03-22
They Call Them Heros, We Call Them Trolls
I get it from this (Glyn Moody, ComputerWorld UK) article.
Basically, an ex-Microsoft employee has founded a company that simply buys up all the patents it can and then licenses them at high fees. They don't actually do anything with the patents.
The saddest part (and this is to those who will come in defense of the inventiveness of the company) is that the companies spokespeople themselves have admitted just this.
At least they have the honor to admit that what they are doing might not be on the highest moral grounds. (Mr. Moody, I disagree with your assertion that this is a bad thing. At least they are being upfront about the ethics of their actions.)
Moody's title is "Beware of the King of the Trolls". I think this may merit a little more explanation: on the Internet, people who "yell" and "scream" (using all-caps, bad grammar, and poor spelling) unsubstantiated claims are called trolls. This is exactly what the company is doing - making unsubstantiated claims to would-be inventors about patents just to scare them off.
People on the Internet ostracize trolls and ban them from message boards and such. Would it be so hard to "scale it up"?
And for those people who think I am against patents, while I think that usually individual patents work for the individual and for society, these corporate patents are the things against which I rail.
Basically, an ex-Microsoft employee has founded a company that simply buys up all the patents it can and then licenses them at high fees. They don't actually do anything with the patents.
The saddest part (and this is to those who will come in defense of the inventiveness of the company) is that the companies spokespeople themselves have admitted just this.
At least they have the honor to admit that what they are doing might not be on the highest moral grounds. (Mr. Moody, I disagree with your assertion that this is a bad thing. At least they are being upfront about the ethics of their actions.)
Moody's title is "Beware of the King of the Trolls". I think this may merit a little more explanation: on the Internet, people who "yell" and "scream" (using all-caps, bad grammar, and poor spelling) unsubstantiated claims are called trolls. This is exactly what the company is doing - making unsubstantiated claims to would-be inventors about patents just to scare them off.
People on the Internet ostracize trolls and ban them from message boards and such. Would it be so hard to "scale it up"?
And for those people who think I am against patents, while I think that usually individual patents work for the individual and for society, these corporate patents are the things against which I rail.
2010-02-22
A Victory for Openness and Against Patents
This article (Bruce Perens, Datamation) gives a good analysis over the closing of a 5-year old court case involving open source software and patent infringements.
The good news is that the party accusing the open source developer of patent infringements has lost both patents in question and has paid the developer $100000, among other things.
Basically, a physicist named Bob Jacobsen who also develops software controlling model trains as a hobby (and released them under open licenses) was accused by Matthew Katzer, a seller of software for model trains, of patent infringement. The problem is that Jacobsen's license was meant to ensure that all software covered in the license would be released under a similar license, with which Katzer did not comply (the non-compliance came in the form of a patent application). Worse, Katzer extended his original 1998 patent to cover this open source code while keeping it under the 1998 date to make it look like Jacobsen was guilty of patent infringement. That shows the worst side of today's patent system and how it really doesn't promote innovation.
Despite numerous pressures (financial and otherwise) on Jacobsen, he persevered. The worst part was when Katzer essentially dismissed the open license (requiring use of the license for derivative works) as essentially public domain and thus patentable in a specific application. This basically threatened the basis of all works published under open licenses like the GPL. When it became clear that Jacobsen's Artistic 1.0 license was legally inadequate, ironically (though I don't approve of this part) the law that came to Jacobsen's rescue was...a law I have railed against multiple times...the DMCA.
What? The DMCA came to the rescue of an open developer?
Funny how the world works, huh?
Basically, the DMCA provided the requirement of retaining attribution and the original license on the work (Katzer was removing Jacobsen's name and license from the code).
Things went downhill for Katzer from there.
Ironically, despite the provisions of Jacobsen's license, as punishment, Katzer can no longer copy, modify, or distribute the model train code (though everyone else can). He can no longer take trademarks of Jacobsen's project. He must pay Jacobsen $100000 over 18 months or pressure people close to Jacobsen about this during this same time period. Both sides have agreed to not sue each other within these same 18 months.
Most importantly, however, unlike most court cases, this one is not sealed, meaning that all details of the case are open to public scrutiny. This is extraordinarily important, as people can now make sure that a similar drawn-out case does not happen again.
Congrats, Bob Jacobsen, and hooray to the open source community!
The good news is that the party accusing the open source developer of patent infringements has lost both patents in question and has paid the developer $100000, among other things.
Basically, a physicist named Bob Jacobsen who also develops software controlling model trains as a hobby (and released them under open licenses) was accused by Matthew Katzer, a seller of software for model trains, of patent infringement. The problem is that Jacobsen's license was meant to ensure that all software covered in the license would be released under a similar license, with which Katzer did not comply (the non-compliance came in the form of a patent application). Worse, Katzer extended his original 1998 patent to cover this open source code while keeping it under the 1998 date to make it look like Jacobsen was guilty of patent infringement. That shows the worst side of today's patent system and how it really doesn't promote innovation.
Despite numerous pressures (financial and otherwise) on Jacobsen, he persevered. The worst part was when Katzer essentially dismissed the open license (requiring use of the license for derivative works) as essentially public domain and thus patentable in a specific application. This basically threatened the basis of all works published under open licenses like the GPL. When it became clear that Jacobsen's Artistic 1.0 license was legally inadequate, ironically (though I don't approve of this part) the law that came to Jacobsen's rescue was...a law I have railed against multiple times...the DMCA.
What? The DMCA came to the rescue of an open developer?
Funny how the world works, huh?
Basically, the DMCA provided the requirement of retaining attribution and the original license on the work (Katzer was removing Jacobsen's name and license from the code).
Things went downhill for Katzer from there.
Ironically, despite the provisions of Jacobsen's license, as punishment, Katzer can no longer copy, modify, or distribute the model train code (though everyone else can). He can no longer take trademarks of Jacobsen's project. He must pay Jacobsen $100000 over 18 months or pressure people close to Jacobsen about this during this same time period. Both sides have agreed to not sue each other within these same 18 months.
Most importantly, however, unlike most court cases, this one is not sealed, meaning that all details of the case are open to public scrutiny. This is extraordinarily important, as people can now make sure that a similar drawn-out case does not happen again.
Congrats, Bob Jacobsen, and hooray to the open source community!
2010-02-21
The ACTA, Not Counterfeiting, Terrifies Me
It comes from this (Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing) post.
Basically, the ACTA is forcing the DMCA down the throats of all other countries.
Some of you know that around 2002, a professor gave a lecture in Europe on cryptology and current technology and reverse-engineered a particular technology (protected in the US under the DMCA) in order to analyze its cryptological safety (or something like that). When he flew to the US, he was arrested for violating the DMCA, even though what he did was solely to promote learning for his cryptology students. Of course, he would not have been arrested in the country where he gave this lecture.
So what does the ACTA mean? It means that he could have been arrested anywhere had the ACTA been in place at that time. Even though the reverse-engineering was done purely for educational purposes, as reverse-engineering, it was against the law.
What?
The incidence of these stupidly-made arrests will only go up in the future.
What's worse is that while the DMCA at least makes clear its intentions in its names, the ACTA conflates counterfeiting with copyright, patents, and reverse-engineering.
Counterfeiting is a serious problem; many people get sick and die every day from shoddy-quality counterfeit drugs being passed off as the real product.
Reverse-engineering? If the US, UK, and Poland had not reverse-engineered the German Enigma Machine, we may have lost WWII.
Basically, the ACTA is forcing the DMCA down the throats of all other countries.
Some of you know that around 2002, a professor gave a lecture in Europe on cryptology and current technology and reverse-engineered a particular technology (protected in the US under the DMCA) in order to analyze its cryptological safety (or something like that). When he flew to the US, he was arrested for violating the DMCA, even though what he did was solely to promote learning for his cryptology students. Of course, he would not have been arrested in the country where he gave this lecture.
So what does the ACTA mean? It means that he could have been arrested anywhere had the ACTA been in place at that time. Even though the reverse-engineering was done purely for educational purposes, as reverse-engineering, it was against the law.
What?
The incidence of these stupidly-made arrests will only go up in the future.
What's worse is that while the DMCA at least makes clear its intentions in its names, the ACTA conflates counterfeiting with copyright, patents, and reverse-engineering.
Counterfeiting is a serious problem; many people get sick and die every day from shoddy-quality counterfeit drugs being passed off as the real product.
Reverse-engineering? If the US, UK, and Poland had not reverse-engineered the German Enigma Machine, we may have lost WWII.
2009-11-11
Microsoft's Ball-mer-zheimer's Disease
I just combined "Ballzheimer's" Disease (The Daily Show) with Steve Ballmer to make a crude but semi-accurate description of Microsoft's latest patent move (PJ from Groklaw).
To summarize, Microsoft has basically patented "su"/"sudo" (the superuser (root) command in *nix) through creation of a "su"-GUI. In essence, it has tried to patent "su"/"sudo" itself.
To me, this is one of the more extreme examples of Microsoft's protection of its software through patents, but it certainly is typical of its general behavior.
I think the Free Software Foundation and/or GNU project should sue Microsoft for violating a (presumably) GPL'ed piece of code. Microsoft should be able to use it as long as the resulting software is just as free as the original software. That said, given Microsoft's recent history of GPL violations, I don't expect that to be a deterrent.
It's a sad day for the technology community when "su"/"sudo" (a tool created in the 1970s (!)) becomes patented.
To summarize, Microsoft has basically patented "su"/"sudo" (the superuser (root) command in *nix) through creation of a "su"-GUI. In essence, it has tried to patent "su"/"sudo" itself.
To me, this is one of the more extreme examples of Microsoft's protection of its software through patents, but it certainly is typical of its general behavior.
I think the Free Software Foundation and/or GNU project should sue Microsoft for violating a (presumably) GPL'ed piece of code. Microsoft should be able to use it as long as the resulting software is just as free as the original software. That said, given Microsoft's recent history of GPL violations, I don't expect that to be a deterrent.
It's a sad day for the technology community when "su"/"sudo" (a tool created in the 1970s (!)) becomes patented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)