Spinsheet

No Lives for Oil? How About Lives for Chocolate?

2010-12-25T11:38:00.000-08:00

It seems that things are not looking rosy for Ivory Coast's president, Laurent Gbagbo. There is a lot of international pressure for him to step down after a disputed vote nearly a month ago. Being president of a country is not something that most people would give up easily and Gbagbo seems to be no exception. After nullifying large portions of the collected vote, especially in areas where his opponent did well, Gbagbo decided to hold on his third five-year presidential term, the fact that the countries constitution limits the president to only two terms did not bother him all that much. Various countries in the African Union are contemplating removing him by using military force. An invasion would be catastrophic in terms of lives lost and heaping even more misery on an already impoverished land.

The only reason that Gbagbo is able to maintain power is because of the loyalty of the military, and as long as he can continue to pay them he will continue to hold on to their loyalty. It would seem that putting an embargo on the country would limit the amount of money that Gbagbo had at his disposal, he would not be able to buy loyalty from his troop, lose their support, and be (relatively) peaceably removed from power. A limited embargo has been put on Ivory Coast and does indeed limit the amount of money that he has to pay his troops. He does, however, have enough for at least three more months.

Where does he get this money? Cocoa. Ivory Coast produces over 40% of the worlds supply. If we have an embargo on Ivory Coast why are they able to sell the world cocoa? Business interests have lobbied hard to make sure that the cocoa is not affected by the embargo. This was not a decision made for humanitarian reasons, it was not made for political reasons. It was made for reasons of profit. Businesses do not want to lose money by raising the price of candy bars. Instead of Gbagbo losing his support by not being able to pay his troops, military action is being contemplated. Soldiers and civilians will lose their lives, villages will be ravaged, but the cost of candy bars will at least be stable.

While I am certainly not a political scientist or economist, this simply seems horribly wrong. Another case of lobbying run amok.

Do we really need disposable everything?

2010-12-13T11:57:00.001-08:00

We have become a society that relies on disposable products and we rarely give much thought to it. From plastic water bottles, to lighters, to razors, we use it once or twice, throw it away and grab another. We thrive on convenience and disposable products are certainly convenient. They don’t have to be cleaned, maintained, or taken care of; however, as we all know, there is no free lunch. One thing we must ask ourselves, just how much more convenient does our appetite for disposable products make our lives?

Look at disposable razors. About two billion disposable razors are bought each year in the U.S. I would imagine that that same amount ends up in a landfill every year. That amounts to over 30,000,000 cubic feet of space in a landfill every year. This does not even take account of the resources that are required to manufacture disposable razors. Any way you want to look at it, that’s a lot of trash, is it truly necessary?

What are the alternatives? Compared the the alternatives does the use of disposable razors really save us anything in the way of time or add to our quality of life? Long before the typical plastic disposable razor came into being people used double edged razors (DE), before that straight razors were the norm. Let’s look at them.

Double Edged Razors (Safety Razor)

A DE razor is very similar to the standard disposable razor in look and usage. It has a metal (non-disposable) handle with attached head. Into this head a double sided blade is inserted. This blade is the only disposable part of the razor. It is nothing but a thin metal blade, no plastic or anything else. After a week of shaving you flip the razor around and shave with the other side. Once the blade is no longer sharp you toss it and load another. Cost per blade? About five cents each. Environmental cost? Being just one single thin metal blade, significantly less that the triple blade, plastic encased disposable. Quality of shave? Better that a disposable.

Are there any drawbacks to a DE? Yes, the initial cost is more, about $30 for a good one. The learning curve is a bit steeper. They are a bit trickier to use but once you get used to it that is no longer an issue. They also need to be maintained and that might take a whole five minutes per week to rinse, dry, and put away.

Straight Razor

I know what you’re saying. And yes, people actually still use these, I happen to be one of them. This is a completely non-disposable instrument that, with care, will last a lifetime. In fact, it can last a few lifetimes. Mine was made it the 1850s and still going strong. One can purchase a new, high quality razor for as little as $200. You can also buy a restored, shave ready razor for $40. If you feel adventurous you can by one in an antique store for $5 and sharpen it yourself. If you really want to go this route, however, I would recommend buying one that is already shave ready, save yourself lots of frustration and cuts.

So, what are the benefits of a straight razor? Long term cost for one thing. Spend $50 and never buy another blade. Nothing gets thrown into a landfill, nothing. The quality of the shave cannot be touched by a disposable, and believe it or not, it is a much more comfortable shave. The fact that you are only dragging one blade down your face and not two or three makes a big difference. Since you strop it before every shave, you always have a sharp blade at every shave.

The drawbacks? Steep learning curve. It takes about a week to really begin to get acceptable shaves and about one month to be comfortable with it. Remember, this thing is sharp and there is no safety on it!

Disposables

So, what are disposable razors giving us in return for their high environmental cost? At best, a savings of five minutes per week if you maintain a DE. Of course, if you have heavy facial growth like me you spend that five minutes per week trying to unclog the disposable so that’s a wash. And really, that’s about it. As disposables stand now, I really see no real advantage to using them.

Perhaps if the manufacturers were required to make them more recyclable things would be different. If they made them so that they could be returned to the manufacturer to have the blades replaced then all that plastic would not end up in the landfill. Put a deposit on them, when you return them to the distributor you get your deposit back any they reuse the plastic casing. Of course, no manufacturer is going to go this route voluntarily, what do they care about what goes into the landfill?

While disposable products can make life easier for us (cloth diapers anyone?), it is not always so, or at least not by enough to justify using them. Sometimes we get into this disposable mindset simply because we forget that there are other options out there. We don’t think about the environmental impacts of using disposables. I would simply not use cloth diapers on my kids, the convenience of disposables is huge. But when we weigh the benefits of convenience versus environmental impact for other disposables (razors, bottled water, cameras) it is not so extreme and perhaps a little sacrifice on our part is in order. Once you get started, you may even realize that the sacrifice wasn’t even all that.

The Beer Prayer

2010-06-28T09:27:00.001-07:00

I found this and simply had to share it...

Our Lager
Which art in barrels
Hallowed be thy drink
Thy will be drunk
(I will be drunk)
At home as in the tavern
Give us this day our foamy head
And forgive us our spillages
As we forgive those who spill against us
And lead us not into incarceration
But deliver us from hangovers
From thine is the beer
The ale and the lager
For ever and ever, Bar men.

Bobby Jindal and the Gulf oil spill. Would you please take a realistic stand?

2010-06-06T16:17:00.000-07:00

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has made it quite clear that he is not pleased with the way the federal government is handling the Gulf oil spill. He has also made it clear that he is not pleased with BP's response. He feels that government agencies and President Obama need to show a greater sense of urgency. It seems he also feels that their relationship with BP is a bit too cozy; he remarked to Fox News, "we don't understand why our federal government would be making excuses for BP." As far as BP is concerned, he has lambasted the company for taking too long in getting the monies promised to the people that this disaster has so far affected the most.

Now, I'm not denying that any of the above is true, nor am I agreeing with it. It does seem to me, however, that the above opinions are a bit at odds with Governor Jindal's latest letter to President Obama. Jindal has requested that the president rethink his decision to enact a moratorium on all offshore drilling in the wake of the Gulf oil disaster. He believes that the people of Louisiana have already suffered enough of an economic impact from the spill, and to add to that the job losses of a drilling moratorium would be more than the state could handle. He does admit that there needs to be more oversight, and that the federal government should verify that all affected drilling rigs are in compliance with safety standards. That is all fine and good. But at this time it is not known just what caused this current catastrophe. Until that is determined, how is proper oversight to be conducted? It seems that Jindal is saying it's OK to keep drilling before we even know what caused the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. Is he willing to bet all that we will figure it out before we see another like it?

In his letter to Obama, Jindal declared:

“…it is not reasonably foreseeable that . . . development and production of an oil discovery located more than 50 miles seaward of the coastline will adversely affect resources near the coastline…”

BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig was about 50 miles off of the coast and is, of course, 'adversely' affecting the coastline. The facts simply are not backing up Jindal's assessments.

Another gusher in the Gulf will have far more dire consequences then those imposed by a drilling moratorium. If it is deemed that offshore drilling simply has too much inherent risk, and the next catastrophic event is just a matter of time, then does that not make the argument that the moratorium will cost too many jobs a moot point? Another disaster will cost more. Governor Jindal knows that this oil spill is ruining Louisiana's economy. He states: "Let’s be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies.” Yet he is willing to risk another.

This last blast against Obama simply does not hold water with respect to Jindal's valid criticism of the government and BP. It smacks more of political posturing than of actual environmental damage control.

Before we 'drill baby drill', we had better know what we are getting into.

Copyright: Too Much of a Good Thing

2009-11-06T18:53:00.000-08:00

The purpose of copyright protection is very similar to that of patents; it is to facilitate innovation and creativity. And how does copyright do this? As with patents, it grants the author a limited monopoly on the creation. This protection can last anywhere from 50 years to the life of the author plus 70 years. The purpose of copyright is very often misunderstood. It is not to make the artist rich, or to, in fact, make him or her any money at all; it does make the artist money, but that is only a mechanism toward serving its true purpose for being. It simply exists to foster innovation and once it stops doing that then it has outlived its usefulness. This is a very important point that is often overlooked. Patent law exists for the sole purpose of stimulating innovation, using it for any other reason is wrong. It has become a welfare system for creators, its reason for being has been completely misconstrued.

Unlike patents you do not have to apply for copyright; as soon as you create something it is automatically copyrighted. Another way that copyright protection differs from patent protection is that copyrights do allow for independent innovation. What this means is that if you write a book and someone else wrote a very similar book, as long as that person did not plagiarize from your book, or had no prior knowledge of your book, then there is no infringement. In the patent system, even if you come up with something independently of someone else, if they have it patented, you are considered to be infringing on their patent.

Copyrights are used to protect the 'arts', that is, literature, music, a movie, a painting, etc. Patents protect 'things', usually something that was invented. What does it mean to say that something is copyrighted? How does that limit what we can do with it? What it effectively means is that we can only create copies for our own personal use. If you buy a CD you may make a copy for backup purposes, or to have one in your car and one in the house. As long as they are noncommercial, you are not distributing them, then it is considered 'Fair Use' and you are within your rights to do so.

Copyright is a bit of a trade-off. The public gives up some of their rights in order to grant the creator a monopoly on his work. This monopoly, by creating a scarce good, tends to make the creator money. If you make money creating something, chances are you are more inclined to make more thereby fostering innovation. 50 years ago, before the Digital Age, this was a win/win situation for all involved. At that time there were no real 'Economies of Scale' with regard to the general population. Let's say that an individual wanted to copy 'War and Peace'. 50 years ago about the only way for an individual to do this would be to grab a typewriter and start typing; you could probably have made one copy in about two weeks, two copies in four weeks, and three copies in six weeks. It takes the same amount of time to create each copy whether it be the first or the last. If you wanted to copy the latest Rolling Stones album you would put it on the turntable, pop a cassette in, and 30 minutes later you would have a copy; if you wanted two copies then you started the process over again. This was all very time consuming and as you can guess, there was not much incentive to create bootleg copies. Copyright was more aimed at larger companies that could produce copies on a massive scale, not the general public. It was easy to trade in your rights to make copies when you aren't really exorcising them anyway.

The digital age has changed all of that, we now have 'Economies of Scale' and a very efficient distribution method. If you now wanted to copy 'War and Peace' you may still have to type it in or perhaps scan it and the first copy would take the same two weeks to produce; however, the second copy only takes only minutes, or even just seconds. The same three copies that used to take six weeks to create now only take two. In fact, you could create hundreds or thousands in that same two weeks; on top of that we now have a very efficient distribution system, the Internet. It's the same with the Rolling Stones album, make a digital copy in three minutes, put it on a server, and thousands of copies can be made and distributed within minutes. Suddenly we realize that we now have something that we did not have before, the ability to make unlimited copies efficiently.

The major issue that we have regarding copyright is that it is based on an antiquated business model. The old model makes sense when the technology of the times made it virtually impossible for the general public to make copies on a scale that could cost the industry money. The times have changed and the technology to do so is almost ubiquitous. The industry is now resorting to Digital Rights Management (DRM) to counter what they term as 'piracy' but is nothing more then copyright infringement. This DRM is supposedly just to keep copyright infringement under control; however, we are seeing that it is more and more impacting the rights of individuals who have legally purchased the goods and can no longer exercise their rights. It is one thing for the music industry to protect their rights, it is another thing completely when they infringe on someone else's rights to do so. Are their rights any more important that yours? They certainly think so.

You may feel that if you do not practice copyright infringement then none of this affects you. You are almost certainly affected now and it will only get worse. The music that you download from iTunes will only play on an iPod thanks to DRM. If you bypass the DRM solely to be able to play it on another digital music player then you have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You have legally obtained music and a legally obtained music player, but thanks to DRM you cannot use them together. In this case copyright is used to facilitate vendor lock-in more than anything else.

If you try to make a 'Fair Use' copy of a DRM protected CD, you again run afoul of the DMCA. eBooks are now being loaded with DRM, if you buy an eBook from Amazon.com you will find that it will only work on their eBook reader and no other. Try to make a copy of Microsoft's 'Zoo Tycoon' so when your kids scratch the original CD to an unusable state you will have a backup, nope, again, it is DRM protected. All of these are examples of Fair Use and you have the right to make such copies; however, the software companies and record labels are so paranoid and greedy that they are more then willing to take your rights from you to further their own means.

Sony went so far as to put what is called 'root kit' on a music CD. If this CD was put in a computer the root kit would automatically install itself on the hard drive and hide itself. The purpose of this software was to keep you from being able to copy the CD to your hard drive, which in and of itself is perfectly legal. What was so devious about this was that the root kit installed itself on the host computer without the users knowledge (which IS illegal) and opened up a security hole that was then exploited by a virus writer. The end result is that Sony attempted to block you from doing something perfectly legal by themselves doing something illegal.

Microsoft has their 'Windows Genuine Advantage' update that installs itself on Windows XP machines. This is a small application that checks to see if your copy of Windows is a legitimate copy or not. If so, then you can proceed along as normal, if not then your copy of Windows will not be able to install certain updates and may even go into a reduced functionality mode. This is not a foolproof check, there have been instances where perfectly legit copies of Windows where put into reduced functionality mode till the issue could be straightened out with Microsoft over the phone.

The RIAA has taken an almost vigilante approach to stop copyright infringement. They will search for music files that file sharers make available to other file sharers for download and then record the IP address that was associated with that user. The users ISP will then be given a court order requiring them to hand over the name of the person that was issues that IP address at that specific time. They will then threaten that person with a lawsuit that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes even millions). They then offer to settle for 3 - 5,000 dollars. They went so far once to sue a family that has no Internet connection or computer. Most people settle as they do not want to have to face a team of lawyers put together by the RIAA, knowing that even if they win it would be a Pyrrhic victory. When the RIAA senses that they may not actually win the case, they suddenly decide to simply drop it and walk away. This is nothing less then extortion, and it is all to keep a dying business model alive for as long as possible.

Fighting copyright infringement in this digital age is like holding your finger in a crack in the dike; the dike is about to crumble and you only have but so many fingers. The old business model is not working and a new one that works with, and not against, today's technology must be realized. Regardless of what people like the RIAA want you to believe, very little of the money that is generated by CD sales goes to the artist, most is pocketed by the RIAA. The artist tends to make their money on concerts, memorabilia, and other such means. As such, having copyright protection for 50 years on a song only benefits the RIAA, rarely does it benefit the artist.

The industry giants, whether they be in the music, software, or book industries, care very little about your rights, they care only about their bottom line. If they feel that they can cheat you out of your rights so that they can make another few dollars then that is what they will do. They have twisted copyright (and patent) law around to the point where they no longer give the general public any value, they are just another tool for big business to make more money. This needs to change.

Software Patents, A Worldwide Problem

2009-10-27T18:27:00.000-07:00

European patent law is not as amenable to software patents as US patent law is. This could cause a serious fracture in the software community. If software created in Europe violates US software patents but is perfectly legal in Europe (or Asia, etc.) what kind of repercussions will that have on the industry? How will the WTO handle the inevitable conflict between the US and everyone else? Will we have software created for the US market and then software created for the rest of the world? Will the US software companies fall behind as the rest of the world innovates as they are not as encumbered with patent restrictions as the US is? This could cause serious issues with businesses that have an international presence.

Unfortunately, large business interests in the European Union are pushing the European Patent Office to allow patents to cover software. This would in effect stifle software innovation in both the US and Europe while the developing nations such as India and China, not bound by restrictive patent law, could then conceivably take the lead in software development.

Our current patent law is bad for the software industry, bad for the economy, and is going to put the US (and possible Europe if special interests get their way) at a disadvantage in the world market as much of software development is going to transition to Europe and Asia where software is not as readily patented. With regard to software, patent law is doing the opposite of what it was meant to do. It is being used to stifle innovation and keep the big players in power at the expense of a thriving software industry.

Effects on FLOSS (Free and Open Source Software)

2009-10-27T18:26:00.000-07:00

This environment is also causing issue with the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) model. FOSS is basically software that is unencumbered by restrictive licensing stipulations. You may change, copy, redistribute, or use the software for whatever you wish (commercial, noncommercial applications). The only real restriction is that you must give these same rights to whomever you redistribute the software to, fair enough. A couple of examples of great FOSS is the GNU/Linux operation system and the OpenOffice.org office suite, there are thousands more. The one thing that stands out with this software is that it can be copied and freely redistributed to any number of people, no restrictions. Obviously, companies like Microsoft, that make their money selling software, do not care much for the spread of FOSS and it is a direct (and free!) competitor to their offerings. Enter the patent war chest. Microsoft is claiming that Linux, among other FOSS projects (including OpenOffice) is infringing on 235 of their patents. Of course, they refuse to say which patents, but it's 235 nonetheless. This is just another way for them to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) regarding FOSS, effectively keeping its legal status questionable among those that would use it.

Many companies that would otherwise use FOSS are scared away from it because of this legal uncertainty that is only pushed along by the larger proprietary software vendors such as Microsoft. They do not want mainstream businesses using free software and are more then happy to use patents as a way of maintaining their monopoly. This is the complete opposite of what the patent system was created to do. Innovation is stifled and the consumer looses out.

Who Benefits From Software Patents?

2009-10-27T18:24:00.000-07:00

While the software giants are somewhat protected by the 'you nuke me, I'll nuke you' environment, the small software company can not in any way compete. A small company with no collection of patents to waive in the face of the giants will soon enough be on the defensive. With the large patent war chests the big players have, almost anyone creating a piece of software can be accused of patent infringement. Even if the accusation is dubious at best, it is usually more prudent to settle for a million dollars then to try and take on IBM's or Microsoft's team of lawyers. And again, you do not have to even know that you are infringing on a patent to be liable. IBM pulled this on Sun Microsystems when Sun was first starting out. They told Sun that they wanted them to pay them twenty million dollars for infringing on seven of their patents. When Sun dissected IBM's claims and showed that they indeed were not infringing IBM explained that they had over 10,000 patents and surely Sun must be infringing on some of them. Sun cut IBM a check. Unfortunately, this type of shakedown is more the rule then the exception.

In this minefield of patent litigation, it is tough for a small company or an individual to bring a piece of software to market. The chance that you will be accused of patent infringement is almost a given; however dubious the charge, it will almost assuredly happen. The choice that this company faces is to either pay the licensing fees that are being extorted from it or try to battle it out in the courts facing a dream team of lawyers that it can't possibly match. This scenario does not foster innovation and growth in the industry, it only helps to maintain the status quo, keeping those at the top of the industry at the top of the industry. This is not what patent law is supposed to do.

There are actually quite a few companies out there that do not believe that software patents are a good thing; however, they actively pursue them. Why is this? While these companies (Oracle and Red Hat to name two) do not believe that patents are appropriate for software they also understand the consequences of not having a stockpile when all of the 'big boys' do, it would put them at a decided disadvantage in case they found themselves at the wrong end of a patent dispute. So what do they do? They tie up money and resources that they would prefer to invest elsewhere (like creating cool software) in creating a patent portfolio to use as a defensive measure against infringement charges. Many companies have adopted this strategy, they will inundate the Patent Office with patent applications for practically anything. This shotgun approach makes it more likely that something will slip through the USPTO and they will come out with at least something to add to their portfolio. This is only made worse by the fact that Wall Street will use a companies patent portfolio as a measure of the companies net worth creating yet another reason for businesses to feel the need to gather patents.

Abusing Software Patents

2009-10-27T18:22:00.001-07:00

When one thinks of big businesses, one can not help but think of Microsoft. Today they hold about 6,000 software patents, this was of course not always the case. In 1988 Microsoft received its first patent. In 1991, the CEO, Bill Gates, was quoted as such in an internal memo:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."

Bill Gates knew then, when Microsoft was a much smaller company, that software patents were not healthy for the industry as a whole but only for those companies large enough to abuse the protection that they afforded. Of course, now that Microsoft is one of the software giants, he has taken a complete 180° on this stance.

A perfect example of this type of patent harassment unfolded last year between Vonage, a relatively new company that offers VoIP (telephone over the Internet) services for a substantial savings over traditional telephone, and Verizon, an established telecom giant. Verizon is claiming that Vonage is infringing on three (very broad) patents and has so far won over 58 million dollars in damages even though the court agreed that Vonage did not knowingly infringe on them. This decision has already caused a drop in Vonage's stock price. Vonage is in the process of appealing this decision; however, the millions of dollars that they have had to spend on defending themselves from these charges, and the millions more that they will need to spend, is money and energy not spent on innovation. A true innovator like Vonage who actually used an idea to further innovation is sued by a company like Verizon that sat on a patent and did next to nothing with it. There are many companies holding dubious patents that are waiting to see the outcome of this trial so that they can then pounce on a battered Vonage. If Verizon wins this battle against Vonage you can rest assured that the result will not be to enhance competition but rather to give the consumer less choice as innovative players will choose to avoid this arena. It could be said that Verizon was originally only using those patents to keep VoIP technology from threating its mainstay, plain old telephone service (POTS), and not to actually advance the technology.

These harassment suites are quite common, SCO Group vs IBM, Acacia vs RedHat & Novel, and many others that are just plain silly. These abuses of the patent system are the norm; instead of fostering innovation they stifle it. True innovators such as RedHat are sued by companies, such as Acacia, that are commonly referred to as 'patent trolls'. These companies do not innovate, they merely purchase patents from other companies or individuals and sit on them till they find someone that is infringing on their patent. More times then not, the infringing company has come up with the idea independently of the patent holder and is completely unaware that there is a conflict; however, independent innovation is not a defense for patent law, only for copyright. These patent trolls do nothing to foster innovation and everything to impede it, they do not innovate or invent, they sit on their patents and wait for prey.

All of the big players have their 'patent portfolios', a war chest if you will. IBM, SUN, Microsoft, and others. This portfolio is a nuclear stockpile of hundreds or thousands of patents just waiting for someone to push the button. This helps to ensure 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and keeps an uneasy cold war style peace among the software giants. You sue me for patent infringement and I'll sue you. It is generally accepted that because of the extreme number of patents that each has, that everyone is infringing on at least a few of someone else's patents.

Is Software Patentable?

2009-10-27T18:21:00.001-07:00

This system has worked well for the last 600 years or so; however, things are starting to get muddled. We are starting to patent things that we really have no business patenting, namely software. Software is not a 'thing', it has no physical manifestation, it is a collection of mathematical algorithms which have historically not been patentable. As it stands now, software is protected under current copyright law as a 'work of literature' and should need no further protection (if indeed that much). Any software created is already protected from plagiarism as any novel, play, or musical score is so protected. If an individual independently comes up with a piece of code that another has under copyright he is free to proceed as copyright allows for this, it only stops plagiarism.

Since patenting 'things' seems to work relatively well, why should patenting software be any different? Is software really that much different then the chemical formula for penicillin or a new type of metal shear? Yes, very much so. Software is nothing more then a collection of mathematical algorithms and as such has previously been not patentable. Very little software is 'new and non-obvious', most of it is built upon the hard work and effort of those before; as Isaac Newton explained his great success in mathematics and science, he was “standing on the shoulders of giants”. In the past when a programmer came up with a good idea it was published in a journal for others to borrow and build upon, very much the way that scientific progress is done today. Einstein did not patent E=mc2, he fully expected others to build upon his work. He certainly did not stop producing because his work could not be patented, in fact the non-patentability of scientific work is instrumental to progress being made. Compared to other industries there is little retooling, factory building, or R&D that needs to be done to support a new piece of software and therefore there is little need for a patent to grant a temporary monopoly to recoup this nonexistent (or at least trivial) expense. As complicated a software is, it is almost impossible for anyone to do a complete search for any existing patents that you may be infringing on. You do not tend to know that you are infringing till you bring your product to market and the lawsuits start rolling in. The fact that this happens so often, that people are getting sued for independently developing ideas that were previously patented would make one think that the original patent was indeed granted for something that was not non-obvious at all.

We must at this point reflect on the purpose of patent protection: To encourage the disclosure and development of new inventions. If software patents do not facilitate this then they should not be granted. Patents are a deal between the inventor and the public, if the public is not getting something in return for granting a temporary monopoly, then why grant it? With respect to software patents, the public is not getting anything in return. What the public should be getting is an environment that facilitates software creation, instead, the current system actually hampers it.

The only legal reason to grant software patents would be to encourage innovation in software development. Was innovation in the world of software nonexistent before the first software patents were granted? Until the early 1980's the USPTO considered software to be a mathematical algorithm and would as such deny most patent requests. Due to some high profile cases this attitude began to change and by the early 1990's software patents were the norm. This begs the question, what was the state of software innovation before this about-face? The answer: it was moving along just fine. The beginning of the Internet (ARPANET), the open TCP/IP protocol, Unix, and the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc, and so much more, were all advancing without the need for patent protection. To this day we have the GNU/Linux operating system, desktop office suites, and thousands of other applications that are created and used without the need for patent protection (but are now threatened by the very system that is supposed to foster their growth...). In 1995, a gentleman by the name of Ward Cunningham created the very first 'wiki'. A wiki is a type of website that practically any user can modify, a high profile example would be Wikipedia. Many businesses also use wikis as a part of their intranets for collaboration efforts. Mr. Cunningham decided not to patent his new 'invention'. Did this in any way hinder the acceptance of wikis by the public? Of course not, they are everywhere. Mr. Cunningham was asked if he regretted not patenting his invention and he replied that he would not have gotten the exposure that he no has as making it free software help facilitate its outstanding acceptance. He stated that he has no regrets. So why then the sudden need for patent protection? The answer is arguably the interest of big business.

What Were Patents Originally Created For?

2009-10-27T18:17:00.000-07:00

With respect to software, our current patent system is a mess. The idea of patenting inventions has been around since at least the 1400s. It is generally accepted that a form of patent was being issued in Venice in about 1470. While there have been some exceptions, the patent system has worked relatively well since then. One reason that this is so is that the only thing that up till now has been patented has been 'things'; concrete items that you can touch and see. That is what the patent system was designed for and that is what is excels at. Things have suddenly changed, we are now patenting ideas, algorithms, math; things that the patent system was not designed to control.

Why do we patent things? We patent things to encourage the disclosure and development of new inventions. Many feel that the purpose of patent law is to reward inventors, that is not the case. The purpose is to assist in creating an environment that is inducive to the proliferation of new ideas and technologies. Rewarding inventors is just one tool that the system uses to facilitate this process. If the patent system begins to hold back innovation then it has failed and must be changed. Unfortunately, with regard to software, that is where we now stand.

The effect of a patent is to grant a temporary monopoly to an inventor, this enables him to recoup the cost of research and development and to profit from his idea. Most of these inventions are concrete things that you can see or touch, such as a machine used for cutting metal or even a new chemical or molecule that can be used by a pharmaceutical company to create a new antibiotic. While both of these examples are very different, they are still things and not merely ideas. Factories and/or laboratories must be built or retooled to build these new items and that can cost a significant amount of money. The research and development that is required to perfect these inventions, testing both their effectiveness and safety, can be significant. The temporary monopoly given by a patent allows the inventor to recoup these costs and make a profit. Without the protection of a patent, any company could start creating this 'device' at a significant savings as the R&D would have been done by the original inventor putting him/her at a severe disadvantage. This time is typically 20 years. During this period anyone else that wants to create what the inventor has patented must first receive permission from the inventor to do so, which usually would involve licensing and an exchange of money. Even if the other person came up with the idea independently, with no knowledge of the previous patent, he is still infringing on the patent holder if he does not go through the proper licensing procedures (this is one aspect where patents and copyrights differ, the latter allow for independent innovation).

There are a few criteria that must be met in order to have a patent granted. First, the invention must be non-obvious, it must have required true innovation to have come up with it. It can not be the next logical step in the evolution of something, it must be a non-obvious improvement or invention and not something obvious to someone that is experienced in that specific field. Unfortunately, most of the people that are tasked with granting patents do not have the background in software to know what is obvious or not to a programmer and therefore tend to grant patents to mere “next logical step” type of inventions. Second, there can be no 'prior art', this needs to be the first implementation of that device in use. If this invention is already in use, it cannot be patented (except by the original inventor). This is constantly missed in the software industry. Patents are typically granted where prior art exists, the one granting the patents just does not have the training (or time) to do a proper search. Once a patent is erroneously granted it could take millions (that a small company does NOT have) to fight it and have it overturned. Third, it must be useful.

The breadth of the patent is usually limited to that specific implementation that the inventor came up with. The patent is given to a method, not the end result, or goal, that the method achieves. If you invent a cherry picker, you only patent how yours' works, you are not granted a patent on all cherry pickers. It is often said that the traditional patent system would patent a specific mousetrap; however, in the software industry you are patenting “any means of trapping small mammals”, this is not far from the truth. The granting of a patent is also a deal between the public and the inventor, we give you a 20 year monopoly on your specific implementation and you show us how it works. This only makes sense, we need to know for what we are granting a patent.

Copyright, Patents, DRM, and Your Rights

2009-10-27T17:25:00.000-07:00

I decided to start this blog because I, like so many others, feel that copyright and patent protection have gotten way out of hand. They have gone well beyond what they were created to do and seem to have taken on a life all their own. They have become a tool for big business to use to maintain the status quo, to help them keep a strangle hold on all competition. Instead of fostering innovation, which is their only reason for being, they are hindering it. Copyright protection has become a tool that businesses have been using to justify their taking away consumer's rights, your rights.

Big business has been using terms such as piracy, theft, intellectual property, and others in an attempt to brainwash the general population into believing that it is the grave danger to our way of life that they say that it is. Piracy was originally a term used to describe those that used force to take over another vessel on the high seas, commit murder, steal, rape, and do other atrocities; now it is used to describe someone that copies a music CD. I for one fail to see the connection, but it is a connection that the music industry is more than happy to foster.

Theft? Sorry, but copyright infringement is not theft. If I take your car without your permission, I now have it and you don't, that is theft. If I copy your music CD, you still have your original, no theft was committed; a law was broken, but call it what it is, copyright infringement, not theft. This may sound as if we are arguing semantics, but we are not. Theft has certain connotations associated with it and those should not be associated with copyright law.

The term 'Intellectual Property' is another piece of spin that business is trying to use to confuse the issue. An idea is not property, never has been, and never should be. Again, they are trying to work in the action of theft. If an idea is actually property, and you 'borrow' it without my permission, then you stole it; theft took place. That is what they would like you to believe but the logic is faulty.

I know that this is all a very controversial issue and that nothing should be presented without being backed up and that is what I will strive to do. I intend to post information, legal actions taking place, and any other information that would shed more light on the issue. Will I be biased in what information I post? To an extent, I'm sure that I will. I strongly believe that copyright and patent law is seriously impeding innovation and stomping all over consumer's rights and I will be presenting information to support that. That being said, I will not sweep anything under the rug that runs counter to my opinions. I'm not sure how often I will be able to post, as often as possible, but I do have a day job, kids, bills...