While watching YouTube today, I came upon an ad for a 3D scanner. As the ad extolled the virtues and features of the scanner, I was impressed with how versatile scanners have become. The scanner in the ad could adjust for albedo, metals, and ambient light. It could produce a precise model of the scanned object as a computer file. The resulting computer file could then be shared.
Combine that scanner with a 3D printer and you get a 3D copier. Any shape you want to copy can be copied with a 3D printer and scanner. The innovative potential for this process is unlimited.
Over the last few months, a group of enthusiasts have been building, copying, sharing and perfecting a 3D-printed gun. I watched the headlines of this story over weeks to see the gun evolve from a concept to a working gun that can shoot a fair number of rounds before it breaks down. With a little finessing of the materials, it will eventually become a reliable weapon over time. The collaborative effort to improve the gun will eventually overwhelm any single gun maker in terms of capacity, precision and cost.
The network effects of 3D printing are starting to appear. As one object after another is copied through 3D scanners, each object will have a corresponding file. Once the CAD file is created, the file is shared and modified, over and over again. With each set of iterations, improvements will emerge and become dominant in the design of new copies. Iterations that don't work, or don't work as well as the best iteration, will be discarded in favor of a better working copy.
Each scan yields complete specs, materials and designs for an object, or, a new invention.
If the purpose of the patent system is to disclose inventions that would otherwise be kept secret, there is really almost no comparison to the 3D copier. In fact, some patent holders have been suing 3D printer manufacturers to stop them from making the printers unless their particular invention is blocked from printing. Existing patent holders already see the threat to their businesses from 3D printing.
This is just the beginning. Copyright is intended to encourage people to create works of art - film, audio and books - yet, technology has supplanted all that and more. 24 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. Peer to peer file sharing is replicating and distributing books, audio and video by the terabyte. If that is what has happened to digital copies of creative works in just a few years, what will happen to patented objects?
In the debates over patents, there is very little discussion of the downstream effects of a broad patent. The system seems almost entirely bent on bestowing immense grants of power to just one inventor. The burden of evidence for the patentee is light since the patent is presumed to be valid. The burden to the defense is very high as any challenge in court requires clear and convincing evidence of prior art. Defense against patent suits, usually initiated by patent trolls can run into millions in costs. This could slow down 3D printing and scanning, but it won't stop it.
With the advent of 3D printing and scanning, simultaneous invention becomes a much more common occurrence. Independent invention of new and novel devices will become more common. But the human desire to share new discoveries and inventions often precedes any desire to acquire protection for an invention. This has been proven time and again by inventors who choose not to get their devices and ideas patented.
3D printing and scanning provide an almost perfect model for disclosure of inventions. I believe that 3D printing and scanning will prove to be far more efficient for disclosure and use of inventions than the patent system. Will we really need a patent system anymore when 3D printing and scanning becomes commonplace? I don't think so.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Cracks in the fantasy of a very small government
I have been doing debate on Facebook with conservatives and potentially libertarians who assert that if the people are left alone, they will be fine. This, of course, ignores thousands of years of history that show that when tiny minorities come to power, they almost always use that power with impunity to oppress others. This is especially true when government is smaller than the mob and/or when the mob has subverted the will of the people in government.
During debates such as these, I have suggested to the other person, that if he is looking for a nation that has fewer laws and smaller government, he might consider Somalia. Now there's a country with a very small government that is almost lawless. I think they'd welcome him with open arms.
Even in this day and age, there are still people who like to live, "off the books", a sort of modern day version of the Wild West. They do all their business in cash, have few records and often will not seek recourse when a crime is committed for fear of the authorities. Many of these people are immigrants, often illegal immigrants.
I heard a story once about a legal immigrant woman who lived with a man out of marriage while she supported her kids. She had managed to save a tidy sum and invested part of that sum with the man in some property. During their relationship, he became violent with her, so she found refuge somewhere else. But she could not get her money back. He simply refused to put her name on the deed to the property and kept the money.
The woman had a contract, but had no way to enforce it because she did not know how. She could seek help from the district attorney where her interest in the property was situated, but she was worried about reprisal by the man with violent tendencies.
For those who think that we need no laws, or very few laws, with a really small government, she might have no recourse at all. The government would be too small to help this woman, as only the wealthiest people would have access to the courts or law enforcement. The wealthiest people might have their own private police.
Because the woman conducted a large transaction in cash and had no contract, there was no third party to verify the transaction. Though she had a contract to speak for her when the other party reneged on the agreement, she could not enforce it without help. It may be that her best recourse is to inform her ethnic community and hope for vigilante justice.
For those who wish for a smaller government with fewer laws, you might consider the problem above and wonder how to solve it. Should the woman simply forget the deal and move on? Should there be no option for justice for her? Will the man who took the money be free to do it again?
In this modern age, we need government to act as an impartial arbiter of our transactions to ensure fair play. We have computers and databases to help record our transactions, root out wrong-doers and provide a record upon which a fair hearing can be heard. The Tea Party may consider this to be evidence of a surveillance state. To them, I say, "If you want your so-called 'freedom', you may need to relocated to a remote island or mountain where you will not be bothered by civilization." There, you can recreate Galt's Gulch on your own initiative, pursuant to your own imagination.
It is true that our system of government is not perfect, far from it. But it is better than it used to be. Technology has provided us with an impartial witness to assist us in our pursuit of justice and happiness.
During debates such as these, I have suggested to the other person, that if he is looking for a nation that has fewer laws and smaller government, he might consider Somalia. Now there's a country with a very small government that is almost lawless. I think they'd welcome him with open arms.
Even in this day and age, there are still people who like to live, "off the books", a sort of modern day version of the Wild West. They do all their business in cash, have few records and often will not seek recourse when a crime is committed for fear of the authorities. Many of these people are immigrants, often illegal immigrants.
I heard a story once about a legal immigrant woman who lived with a man out of marriage while she supported her kids. She had managed to save a tidy sum and invested part of that sum with the man in some property. During their relationship, he became violent with her, so she found refuge somewhere else. But she could not get her money back. He simply refused to put her name on the deed to the property and kept the money.
The woman had a contract, but had no way to enforce it because she did not know how. She could seek help from the district attorney where her interest in the property was situated, but she was worried about reprisal by the man with violent tendencies.
For those who think that we need no laws, or very few laws, with a really small government, she might have no recourse at all. The government would be too small to help this woman, as only the wealthiest people would have access to the courts or law enforcement. The wealthiest people might have their own private police.
Because the woman conducted a large transaction in cash and had no contract, there was no third party to verify the transaction. Though she had a contract to speak for her when the other party reneged on the agreement, she could not enforce it without help. It may be that her best recourse is to inform her ethnic community and hope for vigilante justice.
For those who wish for a smaller government with fewer laws, you might consider the problem above and wonder how to solve it. Should the woman simply forget the deal and move on? Should there be no option for justice for her? Will the man who took the money be free to do it again?
In this modern age, we need government to act as an impartial arbiter of our transactions to ensure fair play. We have computers and databases to help record our transactions, root out wrong-doers and provide a record upon which a fair hearing can be heard. The Tea Party may consider this to be evidence of a surveillance state. To them, I say, "If you want your so-called 'freedom', you may need to relocated to a remote island or mountain where you will not be bothered by civilization." There, you can recreate Galt's Gulch on your own initiative, pursuant to your own imagination.
It is true that our system of government is not perfect, far from it. But it is better than it used to be. Technology has provided us with an impartial witness to assist us in our pursuit of justice and happiness.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Economic Demand: the chain of events
While shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond one day, I couldn't help but notice all the junk for sale. I found myself fascinated by the "as-shown-on-TV" products displayed at the checkout stand just waiting for the impulse buyer. Who buys this stuff and why? Do these items last more than just a few uses before they break?
When I look at my own kitchen, I think of the things I have bought: glasses, plates, utensils, storage containers and cooking tools. I have one of those fancy-pants blenders - it works great, but one of the clips broke. I have to find a way to get one of the parts replaced and I'm not sure I can get it replaced. Maybe 3-D printing can do the job.
I like to buy things of better quality with a bit more money. This way, they last a long time and I'm not buying the same thing twice or three times or more. I sincerely enjoy a product that lasts longer than I expected and that I can truly use until it is worn out. In a way, re-use is the best way to recycle. Some of the items in my kitchen are more than 20 years old and need no replacement. They just work.
This is what I think of as a frugal state of mind. I developed this state of mind from a thought experiment. I considered what would happen if I dropped a drinking glass and it broke. What happens when I buy another one?
First, I plan a trip to buy a replacement glass among other products at the source, the store where I bought it. That requires gas to make the trip. Then there is the time to drive there, locate the replacement product, put it in the cart, check out and drive home. The process of checking out will require access to hardware to scan the product, and a computer connected to several database servers.
The computers record the products purchased, the buyer, the time and the method of purchase. If a credit or debit card is used, then transaction clearing databases are used to ensure that adequate funds are available while processing the transaction. This part of the data processing is not the most interesting part.
When a purchase is recorded, it is recorded as demand for a product. An entire supply chain exists to meet that demand. The supply chain ends at the store shelf and goes back to a distributor, manufacturers, and raw materials suppliers. All of it without exception, comes from the earth. Every time we buy anything, anything at all, we are imposing a demand on the earth - our source of sustenance, our environment.
Think of that drinking glass again. We have more than 7 billion people on the planet. Imagine the burden imposed on the earth to supply 7 billion people with drinking glasses. Do the same thing to a t-shirt, a table, a computer, a cell phone, or even a car. It is truly mind-boggling to realize the effort required to bring all those resources together to meet demand on a global level. What is even more mind boggling is what will happen to our home (this big blue marble) if we try to meet that demand without developing clean energy or far more efficient recycling processes.
My thought experiment has taught me there is more to being frugal than just saving money. It is a state of mind that recognizes the demands we place on the world we live in when we buy a single drinking glass.
When I look at my own kitchen, I think of the things I have bought: glasses, plates, utensils, storage containers and cooking tools. I have one of those fancy-pants blenders - it works great, but one of the clips broke. I have to find a way to get one of the parts replaced and I'm not sure I can get it replaced. Maybe 3-D printing can do the job.
I like to buy things of better quality with a bit more money. This way, they last a long time and I'm not buying the same thing twice or three times or more. I sincerely enjoy a product that lasts longer than I expected and that I can truly use until it is worn out. In a way, re-use is the best way to recycle. Some of the items in my kitchen are more than 20 years old and need no replacement. They just work.
This is what I think of as a frugal state of mind. I developed this state of mind from a thought experiment. I considered what would happen if I dropped a drinking glass and it broke. What happens when I buy another one?
First, I plan a trip to buy a replacement glass among other products at the source, the store where I bought it. That requires gas to make the trip. Then there is the time to drive there, locate the replacement product, put it in the cart, check out and drive home. The process of checking out will require access to hardware to scan the product, and a computer connected to several database servers.
The computers record the products purchased, the buyer, the time and the method of purchase. If a credit or debit card is used, then transaction clearing databases are used to ensure that adequate funds are available while processing the transaction. This part of the data processing is not the most interesting part.
When a purchase is recorded, it is recorded as demand for a product. An entire supply chain exists to meet that demand. The supply chain ends at the store shelf and goes back to a distributor, manufacturers, and raw materials suppliers. All of it without exception, comes from the earth. Every time we buy anything, anything at all, we are imposing a demand on the earth - our source of sustenance, our environment.
Think of that drinking glass again. We have more than 7 billion people on the planet. Imagine the burden imposed on the earth to supply 7 billion people with drinking glasses. Do the same thing to a t-shirt, a table, a computer, a cell phone, or even a car. It is truly mind-boggling to realize the effort required to bring all those resources together to meet demand on a global level. What is even more mind boggling is what will happen to our home (this big blue marble) if we try to meet that demand without developing clean energy or far more efficient recycling processes.
My thought experiment has taught me there is more to being frugal than just saving money. It is a state of mind that recognizes the demands we place on the world we live in when we buy a single drinking glass.
Friday, May 17, 2013
A patent decision to remember
I learned from Groklaw.net that there has been an incredible decision at the Federal Circuit of Appeals concerning patents. In CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., the court issued an en banc ruling, that, if left to stand, will likely wipe out more than 320,000 business method and software patents. This isn't just my own estimate. This is an estimate by one judge who wrote a dissenting opinion attached to the courts decision.
One judge even expressed concern about a "free-fall" in the patent system, that the decision will destroy an enormous amount of wealth in terms of patents. What is interesting to me is that the judge seems to pay no mind to the public domain, to the soil needed for innovation. Losing these patents and more like them, means that business owners won't have to wake up in the middle of the night worrying that they could go bankrupt defending against a troll.
I'm sure the losing party, Alice Corp., has already filed an appeal or is planning to. The question remains as to whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. Given the breadth and the scope of the decision, it is likely that SCOTUS will hear it. On the other hand, if certiorari is denied, the SCOTUS could easily let those patents fall.
Patents are a form of regulation. Many conservatives have complained about regulations, but they don't talk much about patents. I never hear them saying that it would be a good idea to severely restrict the number and increase the quality of patents. To compare, if we removed 320,000 patents from the marketplace, that would be like removing a million plus pages of regulations from the market.
These "idea patents" are written in vague, broad language. The language is so broad that the patents offer no specific way to build the invention, providing no effective limit on the enforcement of the patents. The Constitution prohibits vague laws. Why is there an exception for patents?
I wouldn't be surprised to find that many investors who are aware of the ruling are taking short positions on publicly traded companies with a large software and business method patent portfolio. That would include companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and Acacia would become much less of a threat. Most interesting of all is the patent portfolio of MPEG-LA. What will become of them and their threats against VP8 and Ogg? What about patent protections for DVDs and Blu-Ray?
This is one incredible decision that should be allowed to stand. I hope it does.
One judge even expressed concern about a "free-fall" in the patent system, that the decision will destroy an enormous amount of wealth in terms of patents. What is interesting to me is that the judge seems to pay no mind to the public domain, to the soil needed for innovation. Losing these patents and more like them, means that business owners won't have to wake up in the middle of the night worrying that they could go bankrupt defending against a troll.
I'm sure the losing party, Alice Corp., has already filed an appeal or is planning to. The question remains as to whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. Given the breadth and the scope of the decision, it is likely that SCOTUS will hear it. On the other hand, if certiorari is denied, the SCOTUS could easily let those patents fall.
Patents are a form of regulation. Many conservatives have complained about regulations, but they don't talk much about patents. I never hear them saying that it would be a good idea to severely restrict the number and increase the quality of patents. To compare, if we removed 320,000 patents from the marketplace, that would be like removing a million plus pages of regulations from the market.
These "idea patents" are written in vague, broad language. The language is so broad that the patents offer no specific way to build the invention, providing no effective limit on the enforcement of the patents. The Constitution prohibits vague laws. Why is there an exception for patents?
I wouldn't be surprised to find that many investors who are aware of the ruling are taking short positions on publicly traded companies with a large software and business method patent portfolio. That would include companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and Acacia would become much less of a threat. Most interesting of all is the patent portfolio of MPEG-LA. What will become of them and their threats against VP8 and Ogg? What about patent protections for DVDs and Blu-Ray?
This is one incredible decision that should be allowed to stand. I hope it does.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Mind Games
In the olden days, we had an Atari 2600 with a joystick for a game controller (don't ask me how that term got coined, I don't know). We played all sorts of games from Pong to Tank Battle, a game I could never seem to win with Dad. We finished each gaming session with sore thumbs and palms, but we had fun playing.
I've been away from gaming for a long time. I guess I'm just not that into games, but this post on Slashdot caught my eye. The Neurogamers Expo? They could be paving the road to playing mind games as they experiment with and perfect the the brain computer interface.
Here is what makes their work significant. To start, they could enable an entirely new workforce formerly incapable of working on computers. For example, Iraq War veterans who have suffered hand injuries that prevent them from typing could type and move a mouse again. They may even become so proficient with their minds while working on their computers, that they can outperform people who can type and move a mouse by hand.
I believe that the brain computer interface will become far more efficient that what we use now. Keyboards and mice will be with us for a long time to come, but they will be supplanted and eventually replaced by the brain computer interface.
This is the dawn of the commercially available brain computer interface. Are you ready?
I've been away from gaming for a long time. I guess I'm just not that into games, but this post on Slashdot caught my eye. The Neurogamers Expo? They could be paving the road to playing mind games as they experiment with and perfect the the brain computer interface.
Here is what makes their work significant. To start, they could enable an entirely new workforce formerly incapable of working on computers. For example, Iraq War veterans who have suffered hand injuries that prevent them from typing could type and move a mouse again. They may even become so proficient with their minds while working on their computers, that they can outperform people who can type and move a mouse by hand.
I believe that the brain computer interface will become far more efficient that what we use now. Keyboards and mice will be with us for a long time to come, but they will be supplanted and eventually replaced by the brain computer interface.
This is the dawn of the commercially available brain computer interface. Are you ready?
Why can't we brick our phones when they're stolen?
Australia and England do it. But we don't. The land of Oz has seen mugging and robbing for smartphones take a dive when phones are required to be bricked when a customer reports the phone to be stolen.
Our personal electronics have become little gems. They are full of personal information, music, and expensive functionality that you won't find in lesser devices. Smartphones fetch good money on the black market.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the phones and their theft, yet the carriers and the manufacturers have shown little desire to fix the problem. My wife had a phone stolen once and I asked T-Mobile to brick it, but they would not. Why not? They did not give a reason why.
This is a story that many journalists have reported on. Even today, The Register in *England* is running a story about smartphone theft in the U.S. It seems that the New York Attorney General is asking the major manufacturers why they can't build a "brick my stolen phone" feature into their gear.
I think he's asking the wrong party. He needs to go to the carriers for the answers. Why?
Look at the subsidy built into the phones. Buy an unlocked iPhone and you're talking $500-700. Even a new Samsung Galaxy S III will cost more than $500 at retail. Now if you buy with a two year contract, you're going to pay substantially less, but you're on the hook for two years. The value of the hardware is peanuts compared to the money the data plans bring in. The economics are simple, phone companies have absolutely NO incentive to brick a stolen phone. Zero.
Who are the carriers looking out for? Certainly not us, because they really can't resist the lucre of the data plan. The carriers are looking out for the CEO and the board of directors, plain and simple. These very important people need to pay for maintenance on their summer home in Spain when they're not on vacation.
So the Attorney General of New York is going to get some info from the phone makers. Then if he's smart, he's going to talk to the carriers because the manufacturers are just doing what the carriers ask. If he doesn't start working on the carriers to change their policies, he may be tacitly acknowledging that stolen phones are a profit center for the carriers.
So here's something to consider. Every phone has an EIN printed on it and burned into the hardware. Why is it that the carriers are not matching EINs for stolen phones? It's not that hard to call all the carriers and ask them if the phone has been stolen. Carriers could be required to identify the phone as stolen. We could even have a national registry of stolen phones that makes it easy to track them down, or to at least verify if the phone was stolen before purchase.
Carriers have the ultimate power and responsibility for the phones they sign up for subscriptions. But they are not acting like responsible corporate citizens when they fail to help the rightful owners track down their phones and help prosecute people who buy stolen goods. Apply the pressure to the manufacturers and the carriers, then the market for stolen smartphones will dry up.
Our personal electronics have become little gems. They are full of personal information, music, and expensive functionality that you won't find in lesser devices. Smartphones fetch good money on the black market.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the phones and their theft, yet the carriers and the manufacturers have shown little desire to fix the problem. My wife had a phone stolen once and I asked T-Mobile to brick it, but they would not. Why not? They did not give a reason why.
This is a story that many journalists have reported on. Even today, The Register in *England* is running a story about smartphone theft in the U.S. It seems that the New York Attorney General is asking the major manufacturers why they can't build a "brick my stolen phone" feature into their gear.
I think he's asking the wrong party. He needs to go to the carriers for the answers. Why?
Look at the subsidy built into the phones. Buy an unlocked iPhone and you're talking $500-700. Even a new Samsung Galaxy S III will cost more than $500 at retail. Now if you buy with a two year contract, you're going to pay substantially less, but you're on the hook for two years. The value of the hardware is peanuts compared to the money the data plans bring in. The economics are simple, phone companies have absolutely NO incentive to brick a stolen phone. Zero.
Who are the carriers looking out for? Certainly not us, because they really can't resist the lucre of the data plan. The carriers are looking out for the CEO and the board of directors, plain and simple. These very important people need to pay for maintenance on their summer home in Spain when they're not on vacation.
So the Attorney General of New York is going to get some info from the phone makers. Then if he's smart, he's going to talk to the carriers because the manufacturers are just doing what the carriers ask. If he doesn't start working on the carriers to change their policies, he may be tacitly acknowledging that stolen phones are a profit center for the carriers.
So here's something to consider. Every phone has an EIN printed on it and burned into the hardware. Why is it that the carriers are not matching EINs for stolen phones? It's not that hard to call all the carriers and ask them if the phone has been stolen. Carriers could be required to identify the phone as stolen. We could even have a national registry of stolen phones that makes it easy to track them down, or to at least verify if the phone was stolen before purchase.
Carriers have the ultimate power and responsibility for the phones they sign up for subscriptions. But they are not acting like responsible corporate citizens when they fail to help the rightful owners track down their phones and help prosecute people who buy stolen goods. Apply the pressure to the manufacturers and the carriers, then the market for stolen smartphones will dry up.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Subtle evolution of the car
I've been driving for oh, I don't know, 30 years. During that time, I've had the opportunity to witness many innovations and subtle improvements in the humble automobile. I'd like to share some of them with you, with a glance towards the future.
I can remember my first car, a 1973 Chevy Malibu sedan. I loved the way the colors of sunset would bounce off the hood. It was pretty ho-hum. No air conditioning, I had to install my own sound system and it could barely hold 80mph on the freeway (yes, I was a leadfoot).
It was easy to see what was going on under the dash. Wires, tubes and shafts everywhere. The interior was devoid of the creature comforts we have become accustomed to. In the back seat, there were only lap restraints for seat belts.
I have some fond memories in that car, but I can honestly say that I don't miss it.
I remember when anti-lock brakes came out. It would be a long time before I bought a car that had them, but I read Car and Driver magazine, so I knew of their benefits. I learned how to pump the brakes when I needed to stop in slick conditions or if I could hear the tires squeal in my older cars. Learning that skill was also a source of relief when I encountered the need to use it.
I have had the opportunity to use anti-lock brakes in my current car, a 2007 Honda Civic sedan. I am glad that they are there. They have saved me some serious coin and from personal injury. It is a curious sensation to feel the pedal pulsating as I applied all the pressure I could muster in the moment to keeping the brakes on.
Another feature I like about current cars is the automatic everything. I have a key fob that locks all the doors. If I have any doubt that I locked the doors, even when the car is on the third floor of the parking structure, I can just be near the car, press a button on the fob, and the car would honk to let me know it was locked. This could be science fiction 30 years ago. But it is our reality.
The stock sound system in my car is better than anything I might have bought in the 80s. Thanks to computer drafting and engineering systems for car design, the speakers can be designed to match the acoustic properties of the interior of the car. The sound system in my car is not even the top-end system and yet, it still sounds great.
I'm rather nostalgic about family road trips. I can recall what we used to do to keep the kids occupied. Dad would give $5 to the first kid to spot the highway patrol. We'd play that license plate game where we look for all the letters of the alphabet. We'd sing songs together. I guess those days are gone.
With the rise of the SUV, we see the "living room on wheels". LCD screens in the seatbacks to play movies for the kids. 5.1 surround systems for music, complete with on-board storage for all of our music. Some are even running Windows for a complete package. I would never buy a car with Windows running on it, anywhere. I know enough about Windows to know that it doesn't belong in a car.
Electric cars have been a dream for a long time, but now they are close to reality for many of us. Just plug in at home and at work and your commute is covered. You may not be seeing gas pumps for very long anymore.
The most interesting innovation to come is the self-driving car. Google got the ball rolling and has a car that has seen several hundred thousand miles. There are at least 20 known examples of cars that drive themselves. Will kids born in the last decade learn to drive like the current crop of drivers?
I can imagine a life where the trip to California is spent playing with the kids instead of driving the car. On the same trip, we could take a nap, listen to music, watch a movie or just watch the scenery fly by. I'm sure my instincts will be on fire for awhile, but after that, we can learn to trust the car.
I can remember my first car, a 1973 Chevy Malibu sedan. I loved the way the colors of sunset would bounce off the hood. It was pretty ho-hum. No air conditioning, I had to install my own sound system and it could barely hold 80mph on the freeway (yes, I was a leadfoot).
It was easy to see what was going on under the dash. Wires, tubes and shafts everywhere. The interior was devoid of the creature comforts we have become accustomed to. In the back seat, there were only lap restraints for seat belts.
I have some fond memories in that car, but I can honestly say that I don't miss it.
I remember when anti-lock brakes came out. It would be a long time before I bought a car that had them, but I read Car and Driver magazine, so I knew of their benefits. I learned how to pump the brakes when I needed to stop in slick conditions or if I could hear the tires squeal in my older cars. Learning that skill was also a source of relief when I encountered the need to use it.
I have had the opportunity to use anti-lock brakes in my current car, a 2007 Honda Civic sedan. I am glad that they are there. They have saved me some serious coin and from personal injury. It is a curious sensation to feel the pedal pulsating as I applied all the pressure I could muster in the moment to keeping the brakes on.
Another feature I like about current cars is the automatic everything. I have a key fob that locks all the doors. If I have any doubt that I locked the doors, even when the car is on the third floor of the parking structure, I can just be near the car, press a button on the fob, and the car would honk to let me know it was locked. This could be science fiction 30 years ago. But it is our reality.
The stock sound system in my car is better than anything I might have bought in the 80s. Thanks to computer drafting and engineering systems for car design, the speakers can be designed to match the acoustic properties of the interior of the car. The sound system in my car is not even the top-end system and yet, it still sounds great.
I'm rather nostalgic about family road trips. I can recall what we used to do to keep the kids occupied. Dad would give $5 to the first kid to spot the highway patrol. We'd play that license plate game where we look for all the letters of the alphabet. We'd sing songs together. I guess those days are gone.
With the rise of the SUV, we see the "living room on wheels". LCD screens in the seatbacks to play movies for the kids. 5.1 surround systems for music, complete with on-board storage for all of our music. Some are even running Windows for a complete package. I would never buy a car with Windows running on it, anywhere. I know enough about Windows to know that it doesn't belong in a car.
Electric cars have been a dream for a long time, but now they are close to reality for many of us. Just plug in at home and at work and your commute is covered. You may not be seeing gas pumps for very long anymore.
The most interesting innovation to come is the self-driving car. Google got the ball rolling and has a car that has seen several hundred thousand miles. There are at least 20 known examples of cars that drive themselves. Will kids born in the last decade learn to drive like the current crop of drivers?
I can imagine a life where the trip to California is spent playing with the kids instead of driving the car. On the same trip, we could take a nap, listen to music, watch a movie or just watch the scenery fly by. I'm sure my instincts will be on fire for awhile, but after that, we can learn to trust the car.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Can We Innovate Out of this Recession?
God only knows how many words have been typed to identify the cause of this recession. I believe that by the time we get to the end and can look back, we will see that this was a depression. In 1929, property values fell more than 30%, but in a longer span of time than we have seen between 2006-2009. If that is a measure of a depression, then we were in one.
So how are we going to get ourselves out of this one? Are we going to go the way of painful cuts in social services and civil services like police, fire and education? Austerity has been tried, to no avail.
Before the last midterm elections, President Obama suggested that the spirit of American innovation can lift us out of this recession. America has had a very long history of innovation leading the way for this country. But it can only do so as long as the powers that be are willing to let it. Unfortunately, there is very little room for innovation without risk of incumbents blocking or shelving the new ideas that could be implemented to lift our economy.
There is a lot of talk about the change in tax policy over the last 30 years. It is clear that tax policy has favored those who have money over those that don't. Tax policy has given rise to enormous efforts to send manufacturing offshore. As a result, very little in the way of new manufacturing has been brought here. Andy Grove, a former Intel executive, has pointed out that as we send our manufacturing offshore, we're giving away our ability to innovate.
But there is a subtle change that hasn't been noticed by the mainstream media: the consolidation of intellectual property into the hands of a few very powerful players. Some of them you've heard of: Apple, Microsoft, Viacom. But there are a few very large players you may not have heard of until today: Intellectual Ventures, MPEG-LA, Acacia.
Of the former group, they make things we'd like to use as consumers. iPads, Windows, and 2 1/2 Men (well, maybe not). Of the latter, they don't make the things you want to buy. They make them more expensive.
How did this happen? Quite a few books have been written on the subject, but in a nutshell, this country has draped itself in intellectual property as a religion that has turned into a boa constrictor for our economy. Over the last 30 years, we have slowly turned the screws to the public domain and the industrial commons by increasing the power of intellectual property laws and making it harder to challenge the validity of patents without going to court. it has become a tragedy of the anti-commons.
A typical patent lawsuit defense can cost anywhere from $3-6 million and that is just a start. This is significant barrier to bringing innovations to market. The high cost of patent litigation has also given rise to patent trolls. Patent trolls make no products so they are immune to counterclaims and public backlash. But they make a lot of money by threatening to sue, and offering settlement terms for an amount lower than the cost of litigation.
As we make intellectual property laws stronger, we increase the cost of downstream innovation and eventually, we find that we're falling behind other countries in terms of innovation. We are simply so mired in litigation, both at the patent office and in court, that we don't have time to solve the really big problems humans face. This is because patents have perverted the incentives for innovation.
Of course, falling behind other countries is less of a problem if you can foist your intellectual property regime onto other countries. We do this in exchange for access to our markets and to pry open access to the markets in other countries. The US has "free trade" agreements with many other countries that achieve the goal of imposing the US patent regime on the partner countries.
Each of these agreements is guaranteed to protect doctors, lawyers and other professionals while exposing middle class manufacturing workers to direct competition with lower paid foreign workers. But more importantly, they require the other country to use the same intellectual property rules that we use here.
Apple, Intel and a few other manufacturers take great comfort in these agreements. So much so, that they can safely move their manufacturing operations to other countries without worry that their products will be copied unlawfully. That, to me, explains the decline of the American economy.
Despite many attempts at patent reform, Congress has not arrived at a solution to the problem of misplaced incentives. Michele Boldrin and David Levine have suggested the elimination of patents altogether. In a report released by the Federal Reserve Bank, Boldrin and Levine make a powerful case for eliminating patents and the market perversions they induce.
Our intellectual property regime only works for a privileged few. Until our intellectual property regime works for everyone, innovators will have very little power to help our economy. Moreover, intellectual property regimes must respect the public domain, something our current regime fails to do.
So how are we going to get ourselves out of this one? Are we going to go the way of painful cuts in social services and civil services like police, fire and education? Austerity has been tried, to no avail.
Before the last midterm elections, President Obama suggested that the spirit of American innovation can lift us out of this recession. America has had a very long history of innovation leading the way for this country. But it can only do so as long as the powers that be are willing to let it. Unfortunately, there is very little room for innovation without risk of incumbents blocking or shelving the new ideas that could be implemented to lift our economy.
There is a lot of talk about the change in tax policy over the last 30 years. It is clear that tax policy has favored those who have money over those that don't. Tax policy has given rise to enormous efforts to send manufacturing offshore. As a result, very little in the way of new manufacturing has been brought here. Andy Grove, a former Intel executive, has pointed out that as we send our manufacturing offshore, we're giving away our ability to innovate.
But there is a subtle change that hasn't been noticed by the mainstream media: the consolidation of intellectual property into the hands of a few very powerful players. Some of them you've heard of: Apple, Microsoft, Viacom. But there are a few very large players you may not have heard of until today: Intellectual Ventures, MPEG-LA, Acacia.
Of the former group, they make things we'd like to use as consumers. iPads, Windows, and 2 1/2 Men (well, maybe not). Of the latter, they don't make the things you want to buy. They make them more expensive.
How did this happen? Quite a few books have been written on the subject, but in a nutshell, this country has draped itself in intellectual property as a religion that has turned into a boa constrictor for our economy. Over the last 30 years, we have slowly turned the screws to the public domain and the industrial commons by increasing the power of intellectual property laws and making it harder to challenge the validity of patents without going to court. it has become a tragedy of the anti-commons.
A typical patent lawsuit defense can cost anywhere from $3-6 million and that is just a start. This is significant barrier to bringing innovations to market. The high cost of patent litigation has also given rise to patent trolls. Patent trolls make no products so they are immune to counterclaims and public backlash. But they make a lot of money by threatening to sue, and offering settlement terms for an amount lower than the cost of litigation.
As we make intellectual property laws stronger, we increase the cost of downstream innovation and eventually, we find that we're falling behind other countries in terms of innovation. We are simply so mired in litigation, both at the patent office and in court, that we don't have time to solve the really big problems humans face. This is because patents have perverted the incentives for innovation.
Of course, falling behind other countries is less of a problem if you can foist your intellectual property regime onto other countries. We do this in exchange for access to our markets and to pry open access to the markets in other countries. The US has "free trade" agreements with many other countries that achieve the goal of imposing the US patent regime on the partner countries.
Each of these agreements is guaranteed to protect doctors, lawyers and other professionals while exposing middle class manufacturing workers to direct competition with lower paid foreign workers. But more importantly, they require the other country to use the same intellectual property rules that we use here.
Apple, Intel and a few other manufacturers take great comfort in these agreements. So much so, that they can safely move their manufacturing operations to other countries without worry that their products will be copied unlawfully. That, to me, explains the decline of the American economy.
Despite many attempts at patent reform, Congress has not arrived at a solution to the problem of misplaced incentives. Michele Boldrin and David Levine have suggested the elimination of patents altogether. In a report released by the Federal Reserve Bank, Boldrin and Levine make a powerful case for eliminating patents and the market perversions they induce.
Our intellectual property regime only works for a privileged few. Until our intellectual property regime works for everyone, innovators will have very little power to help our economy. Moreover, intellectual property regimes must respect the public domain, something our current regime fails to do.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Moderation as a way of life
It is interesting to notice the incredible excesses in the news. The wealthiest people in the world spend millions on a personal residence, and some buy more than a few luxury homes. Jay Leno has a famous car collection that many people admire. For some people, spending money on a pair of shoes doesn't feel like spending money until the shoes cost several thousand.
I'll never forget the articles I used to read in Car and Driver. In every issue, they had a review of some fantastically expensive car that none of the writers (and few of the rest of us) could afford. Maybachs, McLarens, Mercedes, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, and Ferraris, all incredibly fast, opulent and exclusive. I remember asking the question with a Google search about how long it would take for a car that could attain 262 mph and hold it, to run out of gas. Someone answered: 11 minutes.
How much is enough?
I answered that question for myself. I love chocolate, but I know what it does to me.
When I was a kid, I'd gather the empty pop bottles in the house and put them in my wagon, then I'd head up to Bill's Liquor on PCH and Marine. I'd get a few bucks and then blow it all on candy.
As an adult, I developed a sense of moderation. In a past job, I worked at a retirement home. The average age of the residents there was 82 years. Their children and grandchildren would bring boxes of candy to their parents and grandparents. 5, 10, and 15-pound boxes of Sees Candy came in multiples and they would pile up. Many residents would just give the candy to the receptionist and she would send it to the kitchen. From the kitchen it would go to the freezer for eventual distribution to the staff.
When they brought it out for staff, where did they put it? On a file cabinet right outside of my office. I was tempted, there was no doubt, but I couldn't let myself eat it. I knew that once I got started, it would be hard to stop. I could see that many of the employees partook in the goodies. I could also see that many of them were overweight.
I just couldn't do that to myself. Besides, I know how I feel after I have too much chocolate. Add tot that a self-image that requires me to be thin, and I have restraint if I never get started.
To satisfy my urge, I found a shortcut. I would wait until I happened to be at the box of chocolate at the same time as someone else who was actually going to eat some. Then in front of the other person, I would open the box, waft the luxurious smell up to my nose and take a big, deep sniff. "Aaaahhhh! I'm done!" Then I'd close the box and go inside my office to work.
I don't know what effect this had on other employees, but this is what I needed to do to restrain my temptation. Just smelling the chocolate was enough for me. I wanted to do this while the other employees were there to keep me accountable. A good whiff of the chocolate turned out to be enough for me.
Today, I understand a bit more about myself. I still eat chocolate. But I like my chocolate expensive, dark and frozen in very small quantities. I just have a little bit each day and that's enough for me.
I moderate my chocolate because I remember how I felt after eating too much when I was a kid. Even as a young man, I ate too much, but I also noticed my limits and honored them. I noticed then, that eating several candy bars didn't make me feel any better than having a few small bites.
There's an interesting scene in Babylon 5 where a confrontation ensues. During the confrontation, a telepath, a human with mind reading capabilities, offers an opportunity to his opponent to strike him. "Hit me........again.......again". After 3 punches, the telepath asks the opponent about his experience.
To paraphrase, "How did you enjoy that? Was the first punch better than the last? Was the third punch better than the first? When will you be satisfied that you've had enough?"
I never forgot that but the point is not lost on me. How much is enough?
That is a question each of us have to answer, whether it be money, houses, gadgets or food or anything else, for that matter. The answer each of us may find has profound effects on where we place our priorities and how we treat other people to answer that question. What is your answer?
I'll never forget the articles I used to read in Car and Driver. In every issue, they had a review of some fantastically expensive car that none of the writers (and few of the rest of us) could afford. Maybachs, McLarens, Mercedes, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, and Ferraris, all incredibly fast, opulent and exclusive. I remember asking the question with a Google search about how long it would take for a car that could attain 262 mph and hold it, to run out of gas. Someone answered: 11 minutes.
How much is enough?
I answered that question for myself. I love chocolate, but I know what it does to me.
When I was a kid, I'd gather the empty pop bottles in the house and put them in my wagon, then I'd head up to Bill's Liquor on PCH and Marine. I'd get a few bucks and then blow it all on candy.
As an adult, I developed a sense of moderation. In a past job, I worked at a retirement home. The average age of the residents there was 82 years. Their children and grandchildren would bring boxes of candy to their parents and grandparents. 5, 10, and 15-pound boxes of Sees Candy came in multiples and they would pile up. Many residents would just give the candy to the receptionist and she would send it to the kitchen. From the kitchen it would go to the freezer for eventual distribution to the staff.
When they brought it out for staff, where did they put it? On a file cabinet right outside of my office. I was tempted, there was no doubt, but I couldn't let myself eat it. I knew that once I got started, it would be hard to stop. I could see that many of the employees partook in the goodies. I could also see that many of them were overweight.
I just couldn't do that to myself. Besides, I know how I feel after I have too much chocolate. Add tot that a self-image that requires me to be thin, and I have restraint if I never get started.
To satisfy my urge, I found a shortcut. I would wait until I happened to be at the box of chocolate at the same time as someone else who was actually going to eat some. Then in front of the other person, I would open the box, waft the luxurious smell up to my nose and take a big, deep sniff. "Aaaahhhh! I'm done!" Then I'd close the box and go inside my office to work.
I don't know what effect this had on other employees, but this is what I needed to do to restrain my temptation. Just smelling the chocolate was enough for me. I wanted to do this while the other employees were there to keep me accountable. A good whiff of the chocolate turned out to be enough for me.
Today, I understand a bit more about myself. I still eat chocolate. But I like my chocolate expensive, dark and frozen in very small quantities. I just have a little bit each day and that's enough for me.
I moderate my chocolate because I remember how I felt after eating too much when I was a kid. Even as a young man, I ate too much, but I also noticed my limits and honored them. I noticed then, that eating several candy bars didn't make me feel any better than having a few small bites.
There's an interesting scene in Babylon 5 where a confrontation ensues. During the confrontation, a telepath, a human with mind reading capabilities, offers an opportunity to his opponent to strike him. "Hit me....
To paraphrase, "How did you enjoy that? Was the first punch better than the last? Was the third punch better than the first? When will you be satisfied that you've had enough?"
I never forgot that but the point is not lost on me. How much is enough?
That is a question each of us have to answer, whether it be money, houses, gadgets or food or anything else, for that matter. The answer each of us may find has profound effects on where we place our priorities and how we treat other people to answer that question. What is your answer?
Friday, May 10, 2013
Linux - a different frame of mind
In the news today, I read that all of the Windows laptops on the International Space Station have been wiped to make room for Linux. This is a very interesting development considering that Windows XP was even allowed to be on any equipment aboard the space station.
I remember when I made that switch myself. In June of 2007, I made the switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu. I had been playing with Ubuntu and several other distributions for months just to see what it was like. I decided I was going to switch and never look back.
During that time while playing with Linux, I checked all of the major applications for the major functions that I wanted to do with Linux. Productivity was easy with Open Office because it can read and write MS Office documents. Fortunately, the Free Software community had spent years decoding the Microsoft Office file formats to make them work with Open Office. Open Office used it's own document format, the Open Document Format, a format that was designed to last for centuries, not just until the next upgrade. I now use LibreOffice.
I found Rythmbox, Amarok and Banshee to be very serviceable music players. Eventually I settled on Rhythmbox since it integrates well with Gnome-Shell and I happen to prefer Gnome to the other desktops. I can play most popular formats so it's easy to work with.
Web browsing was easy with Firefox on hand. Firefox is standard issue with all of the major Linux distributions. It has suited me well until I found that Google made a version of Chrome for Linux. Worthy of note here, is that the Chrome installation process will add a new repository to the list of software sources so that Chrome stays up to date.
And then there was Beyond Compare, my favorite file manager. Beyond Compare makes it easy to manage directories and move files around. If you have two directories with similar contents, you can use Beyond Compare to easily sync the folders and files with worrying about overwriting newer files. This is also great for removing duplicate file and directory sets.
With the exception of Chrome and Beyond Compare, it is rare for me to download software from a website to install on my computer. Most software installed on my computer comes from repositories - places on the Internet where binary files that can run on my computer are stored. The repositories are consulted when new updates become available. Each repository is checked to ensure that it has not been tampered with and gives me the peace of mind that the software will just work.
There is something else really interesting about Linux. The update process works for *everything*. As long as the packages are installed properly, the system keeps a list of all software installed and checks for updates for all of the software, not just Ubuntu.
Linux is not just an operating system, it's a philosophy. The philosophy that I find so appealing is that my work on Linux begins with the least amount of privilege needed to get the work done. If I need to make any changes to the system, I run sudo in Bash or I will be prompted to enter my password from the desktop. The privilege is temporary and only applies to the process at hand, no others. Once the changes are made, the privilege goes away and I can be confident that even if I were to encounter a virus, it would not be able to take over my system.
Since I've made the change to Linux, I have found that I can just focus on my work and not on my computer. That's why I'm never looking back to Windows and can't imagine going back.
I remember when I made that switch myself. In June of 2007, I made the switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu. I had been playing with Ubuntu and several other distributions for months just to see what it was like. I decided I was going to switch and never look back.
During that time while playing with Linux, I checked all of the major applications for the major functions that I wanted to do with Linux. Productivity was easy with Open Office because it can read and write MS Office documents. Fortunately, the Free Software community had spent years decoding the Microsoft Office file formats to make them work with Open Office. Open Office used it's own document format, the Open Document Format, a format that was designed to last for centuries, not just until the next upgrade. I now use LibreOffice.
I found Rythmbox, Amarok and Banshee to be very serviceable music players. Eventually I settled on Rhythmbox since it integrates well with Gnome-Shell and I happen to prefer Gnome to the other desktops. I can play most popular formats so it's easy to work with.
Web browsing was easy with Firefox on hand. Firefox is standard issue with all of the major Linux distributions. It has suited me well until I found that Google made a version of Chrome for Linux. Worthy of note here, is that the Chrome installation process will add a new repository to the list of software sources so that Chrome stays up to date.
And then there was Beyond Compare, my favorite file manager. Beyond Compare makes it easy to manage directories and move files around. If you have two directories with similar contents, you can use Beyond Compare to easily sync the folders and files with worrying about overwriting newer files. This is also great for removing duplicate file and directory sets.
With the exception of Chrome and Beyond Compare, it is rare for me to download software from a website to install on my computer. Most software installed on my computer comes from repositories - places on the Internet where binary files that can run on my computer are stored. The repositories are consulted when new updates become available. Each repository is checked to ensure that it has not been tampered with and gives me the peace of mind that the software will just work.
There is something else really interesting about Linux. The update process works for *everything*. As long as the packages are installed properly, the system keeps a list of all software installed and checks for updates for all of the software, not just Ubuntu.
Linux is not just an operating system, it's a philosophy. The philosophy that I find so appealing is that my work on Linux begins with the least amount of privilege needed to get the work done. If I need to make any changes to the system, I run sudo in Bash or I will be prompted to enter my password from the desktop. The privilege is temporary and only applies to the process at hand, no others. Once the changes are made, the privilege goes away and I can be confident that even if I were to encounter a virus, it would not be able to take over my system.
Since I've made the change to Linux, I have found that I can just focus on my work and not on my computer. That's why I'm never looking back to Windows and can't imagine going back.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Reseller Nation
In the United States more than 200,000 patents a year are issued and each patent has a potential life of 20 years. Most patents are written in broad, vague language that make it almost impossible to build the invention that is claimed just by following the instructions in the patent. This vague language also provides a very blurry boundary for the claims. For the most part, they're idea land grabs.
On the other hand, we have automatic copyright of anything and everything that is written. Each copyright is good for 70 years plus the life of the author. The copyright enforcement regime is incredibly stringent for the consumer, but not for the creator or rights holder. Copyright holders have the power to determine the technology choices available to view or hear protected works. Copyright holders are nothing if not gods in the eyes of the courts.
It is pretty amazing how much power has been given to the rights holders and how little accountability is imposed on the same.
In 2003, The SCO Group sued IBM for copyright infringement. They claimed that IBM had copied code from UNIX into Linux without authorization. After years of motion practice, discovery and many press releases on the part of SCO in the vain hope that IBM would settle, the case has not gone to trial yet. Worse, while that case was in process, SCO was sued by Novell over the copyrights.
In the end, SCO lost a jury trial against Novell where the jury found that SCO did not own the copyrights. What this means is that SCO sued IBM over copyrights it did not own and now there is a teetering pile of counterclaims just waiting for SCO when the trial gets back on calendar again. So far, everyone involved has lost money and everyone on SCO's side has, for now, escaped personal liability for their actions.
Prenda Law seems to be a newcomer that has been making the news lately. Prenda Law is yet another copyright troll that has been tracking Bittorrent users with nothing more than an IP address and suing them for downloading porn, shakedown style. "Just give us the money and we won't publish your name." They have been having a rough time in court lately, mostly because the judge is onto their game.
Even Viacom and Fox have no compunction when it comes to issuing bogus takedown notices to YouTube for content they do not own. There is almost no penalty for their actions, yet, they are costing legitimate businesses real money.
Patent trolls are starting to enter the national consciousness. In polite circles they are known as patent assertion entities. Examples abound, but the largest and probably the most famous is Intellectual Ventures, founded by Nathan Myhrvold. Intellectual Ventures is probably the most feared patent troll on the planet due to its size and patent portfolio.
Patent trolls issue a strong defense against the derogatory term and insist that they are doing good for the country and for innovation. They also take advantage of the uneven evidence burdens placed on patent holders and defendants who have no prior knowledge of the patent (hint: the defense has a a very high burden to prove that a patent is invalid). How else could patent trolls explain the need for thousands of shell companies they set up to collect royalties?
The USPTO has in recent years has operated at or near a 90% approval rate for all patent applications. With so many patents issuing, the USPTO is creating a patent thicket that inhibits newcomers from bringing new innovations to market and still make a profit. To do so, you must gain the support of a deep-pocket incumbent with a legal team that executes very thorough patent searches to clear the rights to bring a new product to market. Even after an expensive patent search, it is still possible to be sued by a patent troll.
These conditions give rise to a patent troll business model that is similar to the copyright troll. "Look, we're not asking for very much money if you settle. Sure it's a lot of money, but fighting us could run into millions. Just sign here, cut a check, and we'll go away."
Patent trolls are killing jobs by raising the barrier to market for any newcomer in almost any market, but with particular respect to the technology market. Small businesses are being sued for using scanners, email and wi-fi. Patent trolls are not promoting innovation. They are cashing in on the innovations of others.
Copyrights and patents combine together to form a very high barrier to market for many potential newcomers. I used to work for a firm that washes windows where I was tasked with creating a customer relationship management system. We decided to embark on this project after we found that what we were already using didn't work for the company (but the developer was very happy with vendor lock-in).
For about a year at the window washing company, I worked with another developer to build a new customer relationship management system. When it was nearly done, my boss asked me how much it would cost to bring it to market to sell to other companies. I hazarded a guess at about $500,000 and that was just to start. I don't think he ever got that off the ground, but he did continue to clean buildings and windows as before, he just had a better system to work with.
With so many barriers in place, there is really only one thing left to do for most people if they want to sell a product. They can resell a product produced by someone else who will then assume the liability for the same. When I say "liability" it is obvious that I'm talking about legal liability. While consumer safety is a considerable liability, patents and copyrights must be cleared before a new product can be brought to market. Now there are so many unknown rights holders waiting in the wings, that clearing all rights is nearly impossible or at least, very expensive.
Few people starting a small business can bring a new product to market if they have to clear all that and then pay suppliers and fabricators to put it all together. Better to join a franchise or a multi-level marketing organization. Care for a glass of Noni juice? If not, there is always eBay.
Franchises are all the rage these days as any shopping center will attest. In a franchise organization, all the rights to business processes and media have been cleared, so all you have to do is follow the manual and the business should just run by itself, right?
That leaves very little room for the true innovators. Most of the innovation these days is a result of serendipity, or an "itch" to fix a problem. Often, innovation and know-how takes place on the shop floor where things - real things - are made. But if you should bring your own innovation to market, you may find that the ghost of Jerome Lemelson has decided to sue your company.
So where do we go from here? A thorough re-examination of our copyright and patent systems is in order. If we want to bring the jobs home, we need to lower the barriers to the marketplace by either reducing the scope of protection and the penalties for infringement, or remove them altogether.
An examination of intellectual property rights should also include a measure of the effects of patents and copyrights on downstream innovation and creative works. If you ever thought regulation was a problem in the marketplace, then intellectual property rights should come under that fold. Intellectual property protection is another form of regulation, but business seems loathe to talk about that.
Until we have that discussion, I don't expect the economy to improve much over the long term.
On the other hand, we have automatic copyright of anything and everything that is written. Each copyright is good for 70 years plus the life of the author. The copyright enforcement regime is incredibly stringent for the consumer, but not for the creator or rights holder. Copyright holders have the power to determine the technology choices available to view or hear protected works. Copyright holders are nothing if not gods in the eyes of the courts.
It is pretty amazing how much power has been given to the rights holders and how little accountability is imposed on the same.
In 2003, The SCO Group sued IBM for copyright infringement. They claimed that IBM had copied code from UNIX into Linux without authorization. After years of motion practice, discovery and many press releases on the part of SCO in the vain hope that IBM would settle, the case has not gone to trial yet. Worse, while that case was in process, SCO was sued by Novell over the copyrights.
In the end, SCO lost a jury trial against Novell where the jury found that SCO did not own the copyrights. What this means is that SCO sued IBM over copyrights it did not own and now there is a teetering pile of counterclaims just waiting for SCO when the trial gets back on calendar again. So far, everyone involved has lost money and everyone on SCO's side has, for now, escaped personal liability for their actions.
Prenda Law seems to be a newcomer that has been making the news lately. Prenda Law is yet another copyright troll that has been tracking Bittorrent users with nothing more than an IP address and suing them for downloading porn, shakedown style. "Just give us the money and we won't publish your name." They have been having a rough time in court lately, mostly because the judge is onto their game.
Even Viacom and Fox have no compunction when it comes to issuing bogus takedown notices to YouTube for content they do not own. There is almost no penalty for their actions, yet, they are costing legitimate businesses real money.
Patent trolls are starting to enter the national consciousness. In polite circles they are known as patent assertion entities. Examples abound, but the largest and probably the most famous is Intellectual Ventures, founded by Nathan Myhrvold. Intellectual Ventures is probably the most feared patent troll on the planet due to its size and patent portfolio.
Patent trolls issue a strong defense against the derogatory term and insist that they are doing good for the country and for innovation. They also take advantage of the uneven evidence burdens placed on patent holders and defendants who have no prior knowledge of the patent (hint: the defense has a a very high burden to prove that a patent is invalid). How else could patent trolls explain the need for thousands of shell companies they set up to collect royalties?
The USPTO has in recent years has operated at or near a 90% approval rate for all patent applications. With so many patents issuing, the USPTO is creating a patent thicket that inhibits newcomers from bringing new innovations to market and still make a profit. To do so, you must gain the support of a deep-pocket incumbent with a legal team that executes very thorough patent searches to clear the rights to bring a new product to market. Even after an expensive patent search, it is still possible to be sued by a patent troll.
These conditions give rise to a patent troll business model that is similar to the copyright troll. "Look, we're not asking for very much money if you settle. Sure it's a lot of money, but fighting us could run into millions. Just sign here, cut a check, and we'll go away."
Patent trolls are killing jobs by raising the barrier to market for any newcomer in almost any market, but with particular respect to the technology market. Small businesses are being sued for using scanners, email and wi-fi. Patent trolls are not promoting innovation. They are cashing in on the innovations of others.
Copyrights and patents combine together to form a very high barrier to market for many potential newcomers. I used to work for a firm that washes windows where I was tasked with creating a customer relationship management system. We decided to embark on this project after we found that what we were already using didn't work for the company (but the developer was very happy with vendor lock-in).
For about a year at the window washing company, I worked with another developer to build a new customer relationship management system. When it was nearly done, my boss asked me how much it would cost to bring it to market to sell to other companies. I hazarded a guess at about $500,000 and that was just to start. I don't think he ever got that off the ground, but he did continue to clean buildings and windows as before, he just had a better system to work with.
With so many barriers in place, there is really only one thing left to do for most people if they want to sell a product. They can resell a product produced by someone else who will then assume the liability for the same. When I say "liability" it is obvious that I'm talking about legal liability. While consumer safety is a considerable liability, patents and copyrights must be cleared before a new product can be brought to market. Now there are so many unknown rights holders waiting in the wings, that clearing all rights is nearly impossible or at least, very expensive.
Few people starting a small business can bring a new product to market if they have to clear all that and then pay suppliers and fabricators to put it all together. Better to join a franchise or a multi-level marketing organization. Care for a glass of Noni juice? If not, there is always eBay.
Franchises are all the rage these days as any shopping center will attest. In a franchise organization, all the rights to business processes and media have been cleared, so all you have to do is follow the manual and the business should just run by itself, right?
That leaves very little room for the true innovators. Most of the innovation these days is a result of serendipity, or an "itch" to fix a problem. Often, innovation and know-how takes place on the shop floor where things - real things - are made. But if you should bring your own innovation to market, you may find that the ghost of Jerome Lemelson has decided to sue your company.
So where do we go from here? A thorough re-examination of our copyright and patent systems is in order. If we want to bring the jobs home, we need to lower the barriers to the marketplace by either reducing the scope of protection and the penalties for infringement, or remove them altogether.
An examination of intellectual property rights should also include a measure of the effects of patents and copyrights on downstream innovation and creative works. If you ever thought regulation was a problem in the marketplace, then intellectual property rights should come under that fold. Intellectual property protection is another form of regulation, but business seems loathe to talk about that.
Until we have that discussion, I don't expect the economy to improve much over the long term.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
The case for open source software: no hidden bitcoin clients
Seems that an enterprising young man has figured out that he could make a little extra money on the side. How? By inserting Bitcoin mining code into proprietary software that is installed on computers that belong to the customers of the company he works for.
Users of the E-Sports Entertainment Association (ESEA) reported high GPU and CPU readings on their computers after installing the ESEA client software. The same users also reported that their antivirus was sounding alarms and that their computers were freezing or crashing. The reason for all this trouble is that the secret Bitcoin client software was, while trying to hide it, using spare computing power to mine Bitcoins.
To understand what this means, we need to know what Bitcoin is and what it's for. Bitcoin is computer generated currency. The currency is generated by running calculations that place a high demand on the CPU or GPU as work. The work is then calculated as a fraction of a Bitcoin. Once mined, or minted, Bitcoin users can trade Bitcoins on the Bitcoin network as currency for goods and services.
It might surprise you that Bitcoins are now being accepted as currency by a few places, which you can find here. There is even a bar in New York that takes Bitcoins.
So what is the problem? Unless a proprietary software company exercises very strict quality control, it is possible to slip Bitcoin code into the software that you install on your computer. How would you feel if you installed software on your computer only to find that your antivirus is sounding the alarm, your computer crashes from time to time and your GPU is running near 90% when your computer is idle? That's what was happening with this example of Bitcoin subversion.
When all of the Bitcoin activity was finally stopped, the total value extracted by the Bitcoin miner software was $3715. Not bad for a couple weeks of work. Of course, the source of the problem was discovered and removed. The company has apologized for the error and has pledged a matching sum to a charity.
This is just the start. Turns that there is a new malware industry sprouting to install Bitcoin mining software on computers without the user knowing it. The virus or worm is the preferred vector of attack, and with Windows, most users will not be aware that anything is wrong.
The problem of secret Bitcoin code can now be seen in legitimate proprietary software and in malware. But you won't find this problem in open source software. With open source software, the source code is examined frequently and checked often to ensure that it has not been tampered with. There is no place to hide Bitcoin miners in open source software.
The reason for this is peer review of the source code where many programmers are reviewing, modifying and improving the source code. Open source software licenses provide for access to the source code for any revisions made to the source code when the binaries are distributed. How does that work? All software is written by programmers in text editors in human readable code with comments to describe what the code does. When the programmer wants to run that code, he must compile the source code using a compiler. The compiler converts the source code into machine language that the computer can understand, and in the process, strips out the comments.
Humans cannot easily read the machine language of software, but they can read the source code. If you don't have rights to access the source code for software you're running on your computer, it's not open source software. You don't get access to the source code of proprietary software like Windows, Microsoft Office or iOS. But you get the source code with Linux.
I think that the day will come soon where proprietary software vendors seek a legitimate source of revenue in the Bitcoin miner. Imagine this: as part of your license agreement to use proprietary software, you will permit the vendor to run Bitcoin mining software on your computer. This sort of enterprise makes open source software that much more appealing.
Open source software is about having the freedom to decide what runs on your computer. It is also about knowing what is running on your computer. You'll never hear that from Microsoft or Apple.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Waiting in line at Comcast
Yesterday, I returned equipment to Comcast to cancel my service with them and settle for "broadband" service from Centurylink. Centurylink offers no more than 5mbs per second here at my home. But for $41 a month, I get both data and phone service. That compares favorably against Comcast which wanted $74 for the bundle of data at 20mbs and phone, and that was with a promotion that would eventually bring the total up to more than $90 a month. When the promotion ends, the total with tax for just phone and data service with Comcast would come out to more than $100.
Centurylink, as you may recall, used to be Qwest, a company that filed a notorious lawsuit to stall UTOPIA before it could reach much farther. UTOPIA is a municipal broadband service that, due to Qwest's lawsuit, stopped building their network about one and half blocks away from my home.
Comcast likes to talk about competition and how they're so much better. In my neighborhood, 5mbs is the max that the competition can offer at this time. Comcast owns the market above that speed. This is a reflection of an almost complete lack of competition, which suits Comcast executives well, since they need a captured market to finance a summer home in Spain for the CEO.
I remember when I was a young man during the Reagan administration. We used to laugh at the long lines that the Russians had to endure in the USSR. We used to laugh at how inefficient they were. We're not laughing anymore. The major ISPs really suck in terms of customer service and efficiency. Doesn't it seem strange that year after year, communications technology gets faster and cheaper, yet, the rates never go down?
I can remember the scene well as I took the modem and power cord back to Comcast at their service center. When I entered the office, there were 3 people servicing customers waiting in a long line. As the time approached noon, did they add more staff to the counter to service customers for lunch hour? No. One woman closed her window and a few minutes later, I saw her walking out to her car - for lunch.
The line remained and moved slower. I waited about 20 minutes to get to a customer service representative just to say, "Hi, here's your equipment. I'm canceling my subscription to your service." How efficient is that?
For all the talk about how we have a free market in the United States, when it comes to Internet access, we are far from it. Comcast dominates the market here and their sidekick, Centurylink is just along for the ride. Both of them play tag team bashing municipal broadband in the courts and in the press, and they seem very sure that internet access is a luxury. Luckily for them, they have the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) working as a mouthpiece to stifle the adoption of municipal broadband.
Internet might have been a luxury in the past, but times have changed. Most people are loathe to cancel internet access and will find almost any other alternative to cutting the cord. Internet access has replaced the telephone as the must have utility.
I think we are far beyond the point where the Internet is just a data service and a novelty for entertainment. The Internet is now being used for work, job hunting, education and entertainment, with a thousand other uses we haven't the room to mention here.
Comcast has an interesting pricing strategy. As speeds increase, set up service tiers so that the price remains the same, but speeds go up in response to encroaching competition. Remove lower price tiers and make the lowest tier so unbearably slow or expensive that it just seems more reasonable to order the higher speed. It's worth it right?
Here's what I'm talking about. For $50 a month, Comcast offers 6mbs. After a day at 4mbs, I can tell you that Gmail, Pandora and Blogger all load pretty slow at that speed. Once they load, they're OK. Well, Blogger had an error saving this blog more than once. At 25mbs, you wouldn't know how bloated the modern website has become. But at 3mbs, Comcast can be sure that customers will opt for higher speeds.
I use the term "bloated" lightly here. The capabilities of websites is far beyond what we could do in the 1990s. From multimedia to statistical analysis to education, the browser has become home to the modern application. Who needs to buy software as a box with a CD in it? The browser does it all. But the connection speed must be fast to do it. What are we giving up when we let private ISPs dictate speed?
One thing for sure though, Comcast would not deliver more than 10mbs without Utopia in the neighborhood. Same with Centurylink. When Utopia gets here, I'm signing up. With them, I can get 100mbs for $45 a month at Sumo Fiber. Comcast will sell that speed to us for $114 a month (this used to be $200 a month - Utopia must be getting closer). Why is Comcast so much more expensive? They have no competition and they really need that summer home in Spain for the CEO.
Centurylink, as you may recall, used to be Qwest, a company that filed a notorious lawsuit to stall UTOPIA before it could reach much farther. UTOPIA is a municipal broadband service that, due to Qwest's lawsuit, stopped building their network about one and half blocks away from my home.
Comcast likes to talk about competition and how they're so much better. In my neighborhood, 5mbs is the max that the competition can offer at this time. Comcast owns the market above that speed. This is a reflection of an almost complete lack of competition, which suits Comcast executives well, since they need a captured market to finance a summer home in Spain for the CEO.
I remember when I was a young man during the Reagan administration. We used to laugh at the long lines that the Russians had to endure in the USSR. We used to laugh at how inefficient they were. We're not laughing anymore. The major ISPs really suck in terms of customer service and efficiency. Doesn't it seem strange that year after year, communications technology gets faster and cheaper, yet, the rates never go down?
I can remember the scene well as I took the modem and power cord back to Comcast at their service center. When I entered the office, there were 3 people servicing customers waiting in a long line. As the time approached noon, did they add more staff to the counter to service customers for lunch hour? No. One woman closed her window and a few minutes later, I saw her walking out to her car - for lunch.
The line remained and moved slower. I waited about 20 minutes to get to a customer service representative just to say, "Hi, here's your equipment. I'm canceling my subscription to your service." How efficient is that?
For all the talk about how we have a free market in the United States, when it comes to Internet access, we are far from it. Comcast dominates the market here and their sidekick, Centurylink is just along for the ride. Both of them play tag team bashing municipal broadband in the courts and in the press, and they seem very sure that internet access is a luxury. Luckily for them, they have the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) working as a mouthpiece to stifle the adoption of municipal broadband.
Internet might have been a luxury in the past, but times have changed. Most people are loathe to cancel internet access and will find almost any other alternative to cutting the cord. Internet access has replaced the telephone as the must have utility.
I think we are far beyond the point where the Internet is just a data service and a novelty for entertainment. The Internet is now being used for work, job hunting, education and entertainment, with a thousand other uses we haven't the room to mention here.
Comcast has an interesting pricing strategy. As speeds increase, set up service tiers so that the price remains the same, but speeds go up in response to encroaching competition. Remove lower price tiers and make the lowest tier so unbearably slow or expensive that it just seems more reasonable to order the higher speed. It's worth it right?
Here's what I'm talking about. For $50 a month, Comcast offers 6mbs. After a day at 4mbs, I can tell you that Gmail, Pandora and Blogger all load pretty slow at that speed. Once they load, they're OK. Well, Blogger had an error saving this blog more than once. At 25mbs, you wouldn't know how bloated the modern website has become. But at 3mbs, Comcast can be sure that customers will opt for higher speeds.
I use the term "bloated" lightly here. The capabilities of websites is far beyond what we could do in the 1990s. From multimedia to statistical analysis to education, the browser has become home to the modern application. Who needs to buy software as a box with a CD in it? The browser does it all. But the connection speed must be fast to do it. What are we giving up when we let private ISPs dictate speed?
One thing for sure though, Comcast would not deliver more than 10mbs without Utopia in the neighborhood. Same with Centurylink. When Utopia gets here, I'm signing up. With them, I can get 100mbs for $45 a month at Sumo Fiber. Comcast will sell that speed to us for $114 a month (this used to be $200 a month - Utopia must be getting closer). Why is Comcast so much more expensive? They have no competition and they really need that summer home in Spain for the CEO.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
The Evolution of Google Maps
I can't remember the first time I used Google Maps. I think for sure, it was long before I got my first Android phone. I started out with basic tasks like getting directions to a new destination. I remember using Google Maps to drive from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City when I was making the move from there to here. Of course, the route is pretty simple once I get on the 15, but I didn't know the town at all. So once I got on a local freeway, I would exit the freeway to use Google Maps to zero in on my new home in Utah.
I also used Google Maps to check on traffic conditions. This is especially useful in the City of Lost Angels. I often used Google Maps to check on the 405, the 55, the 5 and the 73. Back then, I had to plan my life around traffic. Not so here in Salt Lake City. Yes, we have rush hour traffic, but somehow, I've managed to avoid all of that with short commutes and commutes against the traffic.
Then I went for a rather long pause without using Maps much at all. I found few good jobs to do and got busy. Go to work, visit with some friends in locations I know, do my shopping and get home. My trips were usually without traffic jams to think or worry about. It's a rare day that I have to sit in stop and go traffic. Even when we're getting buried in snow, I don't usually find myself in line behind miles of cars. But I digress.
In recent weeks, I found myself setting appointments and meeting them with Google Calendar and Maps. For most of my time with Google Maps, I paid no mind to the possibility of integration with other apps. Then a few days ago, I entered the address to a destination for an appointment and thought nothing of it.
When I got in my car and opened the calendar to see the details of my appointment, I noticed a button next to the address I had put on the event. I tapped the button to find that Google Maps opened to the destination with a nice little icon offering directions to there. That seems like such a little thing, but that has changed my entire perspective about Google Maps. Now, I can create a new event, enter a street address and zip code and be confident that Google Maps will show me the way there.
In the old days, I used to use a Thomas Map book to get around town to new locations I was not familiar with. I would look up the street address in the index to find the coordinates. The coordinates were a page number and a row and column location where I could squint at tiny print to find my destination. Once I had a fix on the destination, I would trace my way back to my starting location on my route and memorize the route as best I could. If I got lost, I'd pull over, turn on the dome light if at night and verify my location against the map and plan my route again from there.
That exercise has been replaced by Google Navigation. A year or two ago I noticed a little blue triangle in the Google Maps interface. I tapped that to find a voice guided navigation system. It's very simple to use. I just plug the phone into my stereo and play back the directions through my car audio system and just follow the directions.
The voice seems to be from the robot maid in the Jetsons, but otherwise, it's functional and articulate enough for me to understand what it's saying. As I drive, the voice gives me advance notice of turns that I need to make and when to make the turns. I've found this to be a very reliable system of navigation around city streets.
For fun, I've changed course on the navigation system and it quietly recalculates the route for me. Even if I take a wrong turn, Google Maps will recalculate the route and steer me in the right direction. Google Maps is a wonder of technology for me, and when it's integrated with Gmail and the calendar, it is a powerful assistant to daily living.
Gmail integration with Google Maps works well in most cases. For example, I can take an email with an address, tap the address and it will open up Google Maps to that address. Even from websites in the built-in browser for my phone, I can tap an address to bring up a map for it.
I've now got a nice little workflow for planning trips. I create a calendar item, input the address and then synchronize my phone. In the car, I can open the appointment, tap the location and get directions by voice as I drive. I never have to look at the map after reviewing the route on my computer before leaving the house.
How Google makes money off that I'm not really sure, but I'm OK with the trade-off in service for my travel itinerary. For now, I will just enjoy the wonder of seeing this system calculate my route when I make a wrong turn.
I also used Google Maps to check on traffic conditions. This is especially useful in the City of Lost Angels. I often used Google Maps to check on the 405, the 55, the 5 and the 73. Back then, I had to plan my life around traffic. Not so here in Salt Lake City. Yes, we have rush hour traffic, but somehow, I've managed to avoid all of that with short commutes and commutes against the traffic.
Then I went for a rather long pause without using Maps much at all. I found few good jobs to do and got busy. Go to work, visit with some friends in locations I know, do my shopping and get home. My trips were usually without traffic jams to think or worry about. It's a rare day that I have to sit in stop and go traffic. Even when we're getting buried in snow, I don't usually find myself in line behind miles of cars. But I digress.
In recent weeks, I found myself setting appointments and meeting them with Google Calendar and Maps. For most of my time with Google Maps, I paid no mind to the possibility of integration with other apps. Then a few days ago, I entered the address to a destination for an appointment and thought nothing of it.
When I got in my car and opened the calendar to see the details of my appointment, I noticed a button next to the address I had put on the event. I tapped the button to find that Google Maps opened to the destination with a nice little icon offering directions to there. That seems like such a little thing, but that has changed my entire perspective about Google Maps. Now, I can create a new event, enter a street address and zip code and be confident that Google Maps will show me the way there.
In the old days, I used to use a Thomas Map book to get around town to new locations I was not familiar with. I would look up the street address in the index to find the coordinates. The coordinates were a page number and a row and column location where I could squint at tiny print to find my destination. Once I had a fix on the destination, I would trace my way back to my starting location on my route and memorize the route as best I could. If I got lost, I'd pull over, turn on the dome light if at night and verify my location against the map and plan my route again from there.
That exercise has been replaced by Google Navigation. A year or two ago I noticed a little blue triangle in the Google Maps interface. I tapped that to find a voice guided navigation system. It's very simple to use. I just plug the phone into my stereo and play back the directions through my car audio system and just follow the directions.
The voice seems to be from the robot maid in the Jetsons, but otherwise, it's functional and articulate enough for me to understand what it's saying. As I drive, the voice gives me advance notice of turns that I need to make and when to make the turns. I've found this to be a very reliable system of navigation around city streets.
For fun, I've changed course on the navigation system and it quietly recalculates the route for me. Even if I take a wrong turn, Google Maps will recalculate the route and steer me in the right direction. Google Maps is a wonder of technology for me, and when it's integrated with Gmail and the calendar, it is a powerful assistant to daily living.
Gmail integration with Google Maps works well in most cases. For example, I can take an email with an address, tap the address and it will open up Google Maps to that address. Even from websites in the built-in browser for my phone, I can tap an address to bring up a map for it.
I've now got a nice little workflow for planning trips. I create a calendar item, input the address and then synchronize my phone. In the car, I can open the appointment, tap the location and get directions by voice as I drive. I never have to look at the map after reviewing the route on my computer before leaving the house.
How Google makes money off that I'm not really sure, but I'm OK with the trade-off in service for my travel itinerary. For now, I will just enjoy the wonder of seeing this system calculate my route when I make a wrong turn.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Could Quantum Mechanics Explain Intelligence?
In recent weeks, I've seen some remarkable research to show that at least something can travel faster than light. What that something is, we don't quite know yet. All we know so far is that we're onto something: a measure of entanglement.
Loosely explained, quantum entanglement indicates a connection between two particles where measurement of the state of one particle will indicate the state of the other. For example, if two particles are entangled, one particle will have up spin and the other particle will have down spin at the time that we observe or measure them. If we flip one of the particles, the other particle will seem to flip, too. Instantaneously, as if they are connected somehow.
Chinese scientists have measured the speed with which entangled particles respond to a manipulation of spin. That speed is estimated to have a lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. Even peer review has so far been unable to show any errors in the results of this experiment.
This is pretty amazing news. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics says that no useful information can actually be transferred by manipulating entangled particles. For now, anyway.
This experiment reminded me of another fascinating example of quantum mechanics at work. A few years ago, scientists at the University of Rochester figured out how to store an image of a letter on a single photon and retrieve it. This is also mind-blowing. The experiment shows that we haven't even touched the upper limits for storage density of information systems.
While these experiments are fascinating, there is a point here that is often missed about inquiries into the work of quantum mechanics Take another example, the humble central processing unit of a computer, the CPU as we know it. The CPU relies entirely upon quantum mechanics to work. Quantum mechanics is not a science of certainty, it is a science of probabilities. One might then see a certain sense of irony that the discovery of quantum mechanics gave rise to all of the electronics we see and use today. quantum mechanics isn't just a science of probabilities, it is the best tool we have today to predict the behavior of particles at very small scales.
What makes quantum mechanics and the experiments noted above so interesting to me is this: the behavior of particles at very small scales observed in the lab is happening all the time in nature. The lab is used to create the environment that allows us to observe and measure it. Spooky Action, as Einstein called it and what we know now to be entanglement, is happening all the time. The storage of information on a photon is happening all the time. Spooky Action is at work all the time. We just don't see it every day.
I think that life depends on quantum mechanics to the point that many life systems exploit quantum mechanics Photosynthesis in plants relies on quantum mechanics to convert sunlight into stored energy. Our eyes exploit quantum mechanics to capture light as images that our brains interpret.
Have you ever been in a crowded room or say, a lunch room and had the feeling that someone is looking at you, then turned around to see that you were right? I think that's quantum mechanics at work. Entanglement probably allows us to feel someone looking at us even when we would have no other reason to believe anyone is looking.
What if quantum mechanics is what makes intelligent life possible? I think it does. The chemical processing of information in our brains doesn't even come close to explaining the speed of computation that we are capable of performing. But quantum mechanics could explain that speed, with room to spare. Intelligent beings, through no fault of their own in the process of evolution, could have figured out a way to exploit entanglement for information processing and storage.
Intuition, it seems, could just be entanglement at work. Imagine that.
Loosely explained, quantum entanglement indicates a connection between two particles where measurement of the state of one particle will indicate the state of the other. For example, if two particles are entangled, one particle will have up spin and the other particle will have down spin at the time that we observe or measure them. If we flip one of the particles, the other particle will seem to flip, too. Instantaneously, as if they are connected somehow.
Chinese scientists have measured the speed with which entangled particles respond to a manipulation of spin. That speed is estimated to have a lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. Even peer review has so far been unable to show any errors in the results of this experiment.
This is pretty amazing news. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics says that no useful information can actually be transferred by manipulating entangled particles. For now, anyway.
This experiment reminded me of another fascinating example of quantum mechanics at work. A few years ago, scientists at the University of Rochester figured out how to store an image of a letter on a single photon and retrieve it. This is also mind-blowing. The experiment shows that we haven't even touched the upper limits for storage density of information systems.
While these experiments are fascinating, there is a point here that is often missed about inquiries into the work of quantum mechanics Take another example, the humble central processing unit of a computer, the CPU as we know it. The CPU relies entirely upon quantum mechanics to work. Quantum mechanics is not a science of certainty, it is a science of probabilities. One might then see a certain sense of irony that the discovery of quantum mechanics gave rise to all of the electronics we see and use today. quantum mechanics isn't just a science of probabilities, it is the best tool we have today to predict the behavior of particles at very small scales.
What makes quantum mechanics and the experiments noted above so interesting to me is this: the behavior of particles at very small scales observed in the lab is happening all the time in nature. The lab is used to create the environment that allows us to observe and measure it. Spooky Action, as Einstein called it and what we know now to be entanglement, is happening all the time. The storage of information on a photon is happening all the time. Spooky Action is at work all the time. We just don't see it every day.
I think that life depends on quantum mechanics to the point that many life systems exploit quantum mechanics Photosynthesis in plants relies on quantum mechanics to convert sunlight into stored energy. Our eyes exploit quantum mechanics to capture light as images that our brains interpret.
Have you ever been in a crowded room or say, a lunch room and had the feeling that someone is looking at you, then turned around to see that you were right? I think that's quantum mechanics at work. Entanglement probably allows us to feel someone looking at us even when we would have no other reason to believe anyone is looking.
What if quantum mechanics is what makes intelligent life possible? I think it does. The chemical processing of information in our brains doesn't even come close to explaining the speed of computation that we are capable of performing. But quantum mechanics could explain that speed, with room to spare. Intelligent beings, through no fault of their own in the process of evolution, could have figured out a way to exploit entanglement for information processing and storage.
Intuition, it seems, could just be entanglement at work. Imagine that.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
On the Relations of Inputs to Decisions of Fate
I'm a big fan of the GPL, aka, The General Public License. The license is used primarily to protect software, though I think it could be applied in many other cases where intellectual property requires protection. GPL is also known as copyleft, for it requires an interesting set of conditions to be met for the use and maintenance of any materials protected by it.
The Linux kernel is the most famous product protected by the GPL. The GPL is actually a rather complicated document, but it boils down to 4 freedoms and one condition that must be met to exercise those freedoms:
What I find most fascinating about the GPL is this: Fortune 500 companies have paid programmers to write code that has been contributed to the Linux kernel, free of charge. 75% of the source code contributed to the Linux project is written by paid programmers. Why?
The answer, I think, relates well to the problem at hand we have found in our current economic condition here in the United States. The financial scandals of the last few years, particularly with the meltdown in September of 2008, show that a few men with enormous power, will make poorer decisions than the crowd can make. This article, is intended to show that the fate of any population is directly tied to the participation of its members in the determination of its fate. The quality and outcome of any decision is directly related to the proportion of the number of people providing input to the decisions.
I know, it's complicated, but lets see if we can boil it down by looking at a study in contrasts.
The Linux kernel is quite possibly the most successful collection of software ever devised. It runs on just about every commercially available CPU (the little chip that runs your computer, your DVR, your phone and the fastest computers in the world). Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system in the world. It has the best C compiler in the world, the GCC. It is developed with software code written by thousands of programmers all over the world. The code is vetted by other programmers who have a vested interest in the success of the software. Participation in the project is completely voluntary.
Compare that to say, Windows. Windows is a proprietary operating system. The decisions about the fate of the operating system rest, ultimately with the CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer. Hardly anyone outside the company will get to see all of the source code for Windows. Exceptions include various governments, and very close partners. For the vast majority of code and users, Windows is a "car with the hood welded shut".
Windows became a popular operating system in the mid-90s through a master stroke of marketing genius, comprehensive and interlocking license agreements designed to shut out the competition and a giant load of deception. Starting in the 90s, Windows ate into server markets for UNIX and became the predominant operating system in businesses large and small for server and desktop systems.
Concurrently, Linux started out as project of serendipity for Linus Torvalds in 1991. Then he shared the source code with his friends. His friends wrote back with suggestions and source code to use. Eventually, as the collaboration grew, Linus licensed the code under the GPL as the perfect mechanism to help the project grow and to protect it from being taken private. The GPL keeps code out in the open for everyone to see.
The GPL provides the perfect balance of incentives to keep the software free, attract contributors and the freedom to use it as desired. To put it simply, you can modify the software all you want and use it internally in your own shop or home as you wish. But if you compile the source code, with modifications you made, to binary files (machine code your computer understands), you must make the source code available to anyone you distribute the binaries to. That is the hook.
None of these freedoms are available with Windows.
Where are they now?
In almost every respect, Windows is declining in market share and relevance. The majority of the internet is running Linux. Google, eBay, Facebook, Amazon, IBM and many other big companies are running Linux in their data centers. Why? Because they all have a say in how the software is used and developed. They recognize the value proposition of using free software and contributing to it. They also know that they could not run a profitable business using Microsoft software, paying for their licenses and trying to compete with Microsoft.
Google and IBM don't use Windows for many reasons, including security. Google was hacked a few years ago by Chinese operatives exploiting weaknesses in Windows. Now they don't allow Windows except for testing their web services for Windows users. IBM, having been screwed over by Microsoft after the joint development of Windows NT, has completely converted every desktop to Linux. IBM has a department dedicated to writing and contributing source code to Linux.
So what does this all have to do with our economy?
Some of you may recall the LIBOR scandal reported last year. Today there is word of a much bigger scandal, involving price fixing the world over. This is yet another case of a small group of people making decisions for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. This disparity in power and the collusion required to acquire it and maintain it is the problem.
When a small group of people make decisions that affect everyone else, we get the Great Recession. We get the Great Depression. We get Lesterland. We get very poor decisions for our (tax) money with virtually no accountability for failure. The quality and outcome of any decision that determines fate relies upon the quality of the inputs. As the proportion of people in a given population providing input to a decision respecting the fate of that population decreases, so do the prospects of that group as a whole.
Even those who stand to profit the most will suffer. How? Gated communities. Private armies and generators at home. Private schools. Isolation. Paranoia. Loss of interest in his fellow man.
Linux does not have that problem. The development process of Linux requires full transparency, full accountability. If something doesn't work, it's rejected, or replaced with something that works or works better. It is a democracy.
We could run our society according to the principles of the GPL and open source. Why not?
The Linux kernel is the most famous product protected by the GPL. The GPL is actually a rather complicated document, but it boils down to 4 freedoms and one condition that must be met to exercise those freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
What I find most fascinating about the GPL is this: Fortune 500 companies have paid programmers to write code that has been contributed to the Linux kernel, free of charge. 75% of the source code contributed to the Linux project is written by paid programmers. Why?
The answer, I think, relates well to the problem at hand we have found in our current economic condition here in the United States. The financial scandals of the last few years, particularly with the meltdown in September of 2008, show that a few men with enormous power, will make poorer decisions than the crowd can make. This article, is intended to show that the fate of any population is directly tied to the participation of its members in the determination of its fate. The quality and outcome of any decision is directly related to the proportion of the number of people providing input to the decisions.
I know, it's complicated, but lets see if we can boil it down by looking at a study in contrasts.
The Linux kernel is quite possibly the most successful collection of software ever devised. It runs on just about every commercially available CPU (the little chip that runs your computer, your DVR, your phone and the fastest computers in the world). Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system in the world. It has the best C compiler in the world, the GCC. It is developed with software code written by thousands of programmers all over the world. The code is vetted by other programmers who have a vested interest in the success of the software. Participation in the project is completely voluntary.
Compare that to say, Windows. Windows is a proprietary operating system. The decisions about the fate of the operating system rest, ultimately with the CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer. Hardly anyone outside the company will get to see all of the source code for Windows. Exceptions include various governments, and very close partners. For the vast majority of code and users, Windows is a "car with the hood welded shut".
Windows became a popular operating system in the mid-90s through a master stroke of marketing genius, comprehensive and interlocking license agreements designed to shut out the competition and a giant load of deception. Starting in the 90s, Windows ate into server markets for UNIX and became the predominant operating system in businesses large and small for server and desktop systems.
Concurrently, Linux started out as project of serendipity for Linus Torvalds in 1991. Then he shared the source code with his friends. His friends wrote back with suggestions and source code to use. Eventually, as the collaboration grew, Linus licensed the code under the GPL as the perfect mechanism to help the project grow and to protect it from being taken private. The GPL keeps code out in the open for everyone to see.
The GPL provides the perfect balance of incentives to keep the software free, attract contributors and the freedom to use it as desired. To put it simply, you can modify the software all you want and use it internally in your own shop or home as you wish. But if you compile the source code, with modifications you made, to binary files (machine code your computer understands), you must make the source code available to anyone you distribute the binaries to. That is the hook.
None of these freedoms are available with Windows.
Where are they now?
In almost every respect, Windows is declining in market share and relevance. The majority of the internet is running Linux. Google, eBay, Facebook, Amazon, IBM and many other big companies are running Linux in their data centers. Why? Because they all have a say in how the software is used and developed. They recognize the value proposition of using free software and contributing to it. They also know that they could not run a profitable business using Microsoft software, paying for their licenses and trying to compete with Microsoft.
Google and IBM don't use Windows for many reasons, including security. Google was hacked a few years ago by Chinese operatives exploiting weaknesses in Windows. Now they don't allow Windows except for testing their web services for Windows users. IBM, having been screwed over by Microsoft after the joint development of Windows NT, has completely converted every desktop to Linux. IBM has a department dedicated to writing and contributing source code to Linux.
So what does this all have to do with our economy?
Some of you may recall the LIBOR scandal reported last year. Today there is word of a much bigger scandal, involving price fixing the world over. This is yet another case of a small group of people making decisions for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. This disparity in power and the collusion required to acquire it and maintain it is the problem.
When a small group of people make decisions that affect everyone else, we get the Great Recession. We get the Great Depression. We get Lesterland. We get very poor decisions for our (tax) money with virtually no accountability for failure. The quality and outcome of any decision that determines fate relies upon the quality of the inputs. As the proportion of people in a given population providing input to a decision respecting the fate of that population decreases, so do the prospects of that group as a whole.
Even those who stand to profit the most will suffer. How? Gated communities. Private armies and generators at home. Private schools. Isolation. Paranoia. Loss of interest in his fellow man.
Linux does not have that problem. The development process of Linux requires full transparency, full accountability. If something doesn't work, it's rejected, or replaced with something that works or works better. It is a democracy.
We could run our society according to the principles of the GPL and open source. Why not?
Friday, April 26, 2013
Patents are not a substitute for R&D
For the last few years, and continuing still, Apple has locked horns with Samsung in court. Why? Apple management believes that Android is a stolen product that mimics the iPhone, a creation of Steve Jobs. Jobs was well known for his desire to destroy Android, and promised nuclear war to that end.
Samsung, despite the lawsuits and Apple's attempt to stir up controversy around Samsung products, seems to be doing very well. Maybe that's because while Apple was suing and spending millions on PR to remind us how original their products are, Samsung has been innovating and creating products that customers want.
Since September of last year, Apple stock has fallen by about 1/3 while Samsung has continue to climb and is reporting strong profits year over year. This disparity represents the cost of rent-seeking on the part of Apple. When Apple is seeking rents, they're not focused on better products and customer satisfaction.
Apple has asserted many patents against Samsung in two different legal actions, patents that are best described as "idea" or "software" patents. The patent for a tablet in a rectangular shape with rounded corners? That's an idea. But because the USPTO issued this patent, Barnes and Noble cut one of the corners on their Nooks to work around the patent. Pretty innovative, huh?
Apple has many patents on user interface behavior that have sent many competitors searching for prior art because the USPTO didn't take the time to do it. Take the "bounce-back" patent asserted by Apple. This is a patent for the behavior of icons to visually bounce back when the scrolling has come to the end of the line. Or how about the "Swipe to Unlock" patent? This is a patent on programming a user interface to unlock when the user swipes his finger across the face of the display. Both of these are idea and software patents. They could be implemented in a million different ways, but because of the broad language of the patent claims, many competitors can be easily ensnared with a threat of litigation from Apple.
A review of Apple's stock price for the last year shows a steady climb leading up to the verdict in the first lawsuit against Samsung. In that verdict, Apple was awarded slightly more than $1 Billion, but due to procedural, and jury errors, the verdict has already been cut by more than a third. A new damages trial is imminent and there is more cutting likely to follow on appeal. Apple's stock price tracks nicely with those events.
During that time, observers have noted that Apple has been recycling their products and that they haven't produced anything revolutionary since Steve Jobs' death. It seems as if the company was relying almost completely on the leadership that Jobs provided as a source of innovative ideas. While that may be true, reliance upon intellectual property protection also played a factor.
Robert Hunt and James Bessen have provided well documented support for the contention that once a company acquires a sizable patent portfolio, patents tend to substitute for R&D. This is what has happened to Apple. During the last three years, Apple has become a significant, if not terrifying patent aggressor. During the same time, Samsung did not prosecute any high profile patent suits and was continually churning out new products.
As a result, Samsung's profits are not only higher, but over the last 3 years, their stock has continued to climb more than 50%. Shareholders have taken notice and the price of Apple stock reflects their concerns, while Samsung continues to attract investors for their technological savvy.
Samsung seems to understand a simple point about ideas:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it." --- Thomas Jefferson
Better to create new ideas than to cling to the old, or to cling to government protection for an idea already disclosed. Of course, someone has noted that in recent years, very few revolutionary inventions have been built. It seems that we're all just really good iterators.
Samsung seems pretty happy with iteration, while Apple isn't quite as enthusiastic as it used to be, but remains, an iterator. Everything they've done is based on the work of someone else. They might be happier if they got over it and started iterating instead of litigating.
Samsung, despite the lawsuits and Apple's attempt to stir up controversy around Samsung products, seems to be doing very well. Maybe that's because while Apple was suing and spending millions on PR to remind us how original their products are, Samsung has been innovating and creating products that customers want.
Since September of last year, Apple stock has fallen by about 1/3 while Samsung has continue to climb and is reporting strong profits year over year. This disparity represents the cost of rent-seeking on the part of Apple. When Apple is seeking rents, they're not focused on better products and customer satisfaction.
Apple has asserted many patents against Samsung in two different legal actions, patents that are best described as "idea" or "software" patents. The patent for a tablet in a rectangular shape with rounded corners? That's an idea. But because the USPTO issued this patent, Barnes and Noble cut one of the corners on their Nooks to work around the patent. Pretty innovative, huh?
Apple has many patents on user interface behavior that have sent many competitors searching for prior art because the USPTO didn't take the time to do it. Take the "bounce-back" patent asserted by Apple. This is a patent for the behavior of icons to visually bounce back when the scrolling has come to the end of the line. Or how about the "Swipe to Unlock" patent? This is a patent on programming a user interface to unlock when the user swipes his finger across the face of the display. Both of these are idea and software patents. They could be implemented in a million different ways, but because of the broad language of the patent claims, many competitors can be easily ensnared with a threat of litigation from Apple.
A review of Apple's stock price for the last year shows a steady climb leading up to the verdict in the first lawsuit against Samsung. In that verdict, Apple was awarded slightly more than $1 Billion, but due to procedural, and jury errors, the verdict has already been cut by more than a third. A new damages trial is imminent and there is more cutting likely to follow on appeal. Apple's stock price tracks nicely with those events.
During that time, observers have noted that Apple has been recycling their products and that they haven't produced anything revolutionary since Steve Jobs' death. It seems as if the company was relying almost completely on the leadership that Jobs provided as a source of innovative ideas. While that may be true, reliance upon intellectual property protection also played a factor.
Robert Hunt and James Bessen have provided well documented support for the contention that once a company acquires a sizable patent portfolio, patents tend to substitute for R&D. This is what has happened to Apple. During the last three years, Apple has become a significant, if not terrifying patent aggressor. During the same time, Samsung did not prosecute any high profile patent suits and was continually churning out new products.
As a result, Samsung's profits are not only higher, but over the last 3 years, their stock has continued to climb more than 50%. Shareholders have taken notice and the price of Apple stock reflects their concerns, while Samsung continues to attract investors for their technological savvy.
Samsung seems to understand a simple point about ideas:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it." --- Thomas Jefferson
Better to create new ideas than to cling to the old, or to cling to government protection for an idea already disclosed. Of course, someone has noted that in recent years, very few revolutionary inventions have been built. It seems that we're all just really good iterators.
Samsung seems pretty happy with iteration, while Apple isn't quite as enthusiastic as it used to be, but remains, an iterator. Everything they've done is based on the work of someone else. They might be happier if they got over it and started iterating instead of litigating.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Provo Fiber
Google Fiber is coming to Provo, Utah. That is really great news for Provo. I've been there a few times and I like the town. It's much smaller than Salt Lake City, but there is still plenty to do around town. There is also a beautiful lake to visit from time to time right next to town. Salt Lake is not that far from Provo, so I can still hit Ikea and Costco if need be.
I'm actually thinking about moving to Provo for a number of reasons, but the big one is that when Google Fiber lights up, the business in the town will boom. Kinda like a gold rush, except that there is no limit to data transmissions since the technology keeps getting better. Just to give you an idea about the lack of limits, last year, someone set a new record (that has probably already been broken by now) for data transmission. They transmitted 25 terabits in a second using graphene optical modulators. The trend is that tech is only going to get better.
The deal between Google and Provo is similar to the one in Austin and Kansas City with one major difference. Provo already has a network and Google will buy it for $1. The city will continue to pay the bonds that were used to finance the build out. Google will maintain the network and provide 5mbs to every resident for free for 7 years. Anyone who wants Gigabit fiber will pay $70 month. There is a $300 hookup fee. That's it.
I know something of what can be done on a 20mbs connection. I have one. At least I will have one for about another day. Then I'm switching to Centurylink for a 5mbs connection. I'm just tired of playing the 'loyalty" game with Comcast. That is where they set me up on the promotion for 6 months and then I call as soon as our bill goes up to negotiate a new promotion.
This time, that game is not going to work. I"m on a two year promotion and the fees went up 25% in one year. Comcast is a private monopoly and acts like one.
I know that I can stream video and audio on 5mbs and 20mbs per second. But on Gigabit, I haven't the slightest idea what kinds of applications are in store. I think that entire new industries will emerge with speeds like that.
What I can't fathom is why Comcast or any of the other ISPs want to prevent that kind of speed from becoming the norm. Maybe they're worried that there won't be any justification for their lofty prices or annual rate increases. Maybe, they won't be able to justify the astronomical salaries paid to the directors and the CEOs that makes a summer home in Spain a reality for them.
What I can't fathom is why Comcast or any of the other ISPs want to prevent that kind of speed from becoming the norm. Maybe they're worried that there won't be any justification for their lofty prices or annual rate increases. Maybe, they won't be able to justify the astronomical salaries paid to the directors and the CEOs that makes a summer home in Spain a reality for them.
Google actually gets it. They understand the customer better than Comcast and Centurylink. They're not afraid to expose their business to competition because they know that will only make them a better company. Google is part of the Data Liberation Front, an organization dedicated to making it easy to get your data from whatever resource you use on Google properties. You have a blog? You can download all your articles in one nice tarball or zip file. Want your email backed up? Hook up Thunderbird with IMAP and you'll have everything.
I think that Google uses open standards to make it easier to innovate, but they also know that their customers could leave anytime they find something better offered by someone else. Maintaining awareness that their customers are not in some comfy lock-in due to technology is what drives Google to do better.
Sure, Google Fiber provides 1Gbs, and maybe for awhile, they'll be the only game in town in Provo at that speed. But they know that others are out there to provide the same speed if they want to compete against Google. Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon and Centurylink can all try if they want to. I doubt they will bother. There is so much customer antipathy towards the incumbents that even if the incumbents can meet or beat Google, customers may not want to go back.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
ISP Tactics
I live in a sort of gray area when it comes to Internet service. I can get service from Comcast as fast as I want it. But they charge very high rates because they know that Centurylink, the other carrier in my neighborhood, can only provide 7mbs.
To appease customers, Comcast has a set of promotions to keep their customers in line. I have the Performance Internet Plan bundled with phone service. This plan provides speeds up to 20mbs down and 4mbs up. The cost of my internet service at the start of the promotion was $59.99. Now it is $74.99. For customers who are adding this service to their homes, the rate for the first six months is $19.99. The fine print reveals the following:
"After first 6 months, monthly service charge goes to $34.99 for months 7-12. After 12 months, or if any service is cancelled or downgraded, regular charges apply. Comcast’s current monthly service charge for Performance ranges from $42.95 to $62.95..."
Notice that they don't even quote a definite rate after the promotion has expired. Why not? Do they really want to keep the customer ignorant of the true costs? Maybe they're hoping that the customer doesn't read the invoice and simply rests assured that a set amount will be deducted from his bank account at regular intervals.
As you can see, Comcast doesn't really care about their loyal customers. New customers get better rates. New customers get the red carpet. Old customers? Pfff! They're charging me $74 just for internet and phone service with the promotion. According to the CSR I spoke with, if standard rates were applied, I'd be paying well over $110 a month for both phone and internet service.
I could drop down to the lowest rate and save some money. What's there? For $29.99, I get 3mbs down and 768kbs up. Nice. The lowest tier doesn't even qualify as broadband these days and guarantees that anyone who wants to stream movies on Netflix will up the plan to a much higher rate.
There is more to the strategy than meets the eye. A review of the plans offered by Centurylink illustrate an interesting dovetail. Centurylink offers 7mbs at my address for a very reasonable rate. But there is nothing higher. It's like there is a tacit agreement between Comcast and Centurylink to not compete across established territories. Perhaps the return of the ISP mafia is at hand.
That isn't the kicker, though. UTOPIA, a municipal broadband consortium, had just stopped building a block and a half away from my house before I moved in - dashing any hopes of getting connected. They might have built more had it not been for a a lawsuit filed by Qwest (now Centurylink) to stop UTOPIA from hanging their fiber on the telephone poles. That was an expensive lawsuit designed to stall UTOPIA long enough for the local incumbents to assess and control the situation.
I no longer wish to reward Comcast or Centurylink for their monopolistic behavior. Yes I would like the faster speeds, but as of tomorrow, I'm going to be hooking up to Centurylink. In a free market, I wouldn't have to choose between two monopolists, but who said the Internet service market is free?
We could have a free market if any company that owns the wires is designated as a common carrier and must resell use of their pipes at wholesale to competitors. That's why I say that net neutrality is a ruse.
To appease customers, Comcast has a set of promotions to keep their customers in line. I have the Performance Internet Plan bundled with phone service. This plan provides speeds up to 20mbs down and 4mbs up. The cost of my internet service at the start of the promotion was $59.99. Now it is $74.99. For customers who are adding this service to their homes, the rate for the first six months is $19.99. The fine print reveals the following:
"After first 6 months, monthly service charge goes to $34.99 for months 7-12. After 12 months, or if any service is cancelled or downgraded, regular charges apply. Comcast’s current monthly service charge for Performance ranges from $42.95 to $62.95..."
Notice that they don't even quote a definite rate after the promotion has expired. Why not? Do they really want to keep the customer ignorant of the true costs? Maybe they're hoping that the customer doesn't read the invoice and simply rests assured that a set amount will be deducted from his bank account at regular intervals.
As you can see, Comcast doesn't really care about their loyal customers. New customers get better rates. New customers get the red carpet. Old customers? Pfff! They're charging me $74 just for internet and phone service with the promotion. According to the CSR I spoke with, if standard rates were applied, I'd be paying well over $110 a month for both phone and internet service.
I could drop down to the lowest rate and save some money. What's there? For $29.99, I get 3mbs down and 768kbs up. Nice. The lowest tier doesn't even qualify as broadband these days and guarantees that anyone who wants to stream movies on Netflix will up the plan to a much higher rate.
There is more to the strategy than meets the eye. A review of the plans offered by Centurylink illustrate an interesting dovetail. Centurylink offers 7mbs at my address for a very reasonable rate. But there is nothing higher. It's like there is a tacit agreement between Comcast and Centurylink to not compete across established territories. Perhaps the return of the ISP mafia is at hand.
That isn't the kicker, though. UTOPIA, a municipal broadband consortium, had just stopped building a block and a half away from my house before I moved in - dashing any hopes of getting connected. They might have built more had it not been for a a lawsuit filed by Qwest (now Centurylink) to stop UTOPIA from hanging their fiber on the telephone poles. That was an expensive lawsuit designed to stall UTOPIA long enough for the local incumbents to assess and control the situation.
I no longer wish to reward Comcast or Centurylink for their monopolistic behavior. Yes I would like the faster speeds, but as of tomorrow, I'm going to be hooking up to Centurylink. In a free market, I wouldn't have to choose between two monopolists, but who said the Internet service market is free?
We could have a free market if any company that owns the wires is designated as a common carrier and must resell use of their pipes at wholesale to competitors. That's why I say that net neutrality is a ruse.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Changing of the guard
Today I read in the Wall Street Journal that IBM is reporting a drop in revenue as well as selling off some more of its business. Microsoft has reported zero growth for its Windows business. Oracle has reported a small dip in revenues as well. Even Apple has seen a precipitous decline of its stock value by at least 1/3rd since last September.
In contrast, Google is reporting 31% income growth. Other online companies are reporting growth as well. Why?
This blog was written in Blogger, an online service. The operating system I use on this computer is Ubuntu, a free software alternative to Windows. Sure, the computer came with a Windows license, but I wanted a choice. I'm writing this blog article in Chrome, a free browser that runs on all consumer operating systems. All of it is free, much of it is free as in freedom. The online companies are running their businesses on free software, too. Linux, Apache, Javascript, Python. They are also using free protocols, TCP/IP, HTTP, and many other open standards.
That is what the old guard is missing. The old guard, loaded up to the eyeballs with name recognition, experience and know-how, are not moving fast enough to keep up with the disrupters. The disrupters are companies like Google, eBay, Facebook, and Twitter. They don't make their money selling software in a box with a license that hardly anyone ever reads.
The disrupters make their money by selling something people now want. Software that consumers never have to update. Software that is free. Service that is second to none.
I note also, that there is one other thing that the old guard has to fend off the disrupters: patents. Tens of thousands of patents. God only knows how many patents they actually own as the USPTO has been operating at or near a 90% patent application approval rate for a few years now. The old guard has been applying for patents on any idea that happens to pass the lips of someone in a product planning meeting.
The patent fight hasn't met much success. Oracle sued Google over Android for patent infringement and came away empty handed. Apple has two lawsuits against Samsung in progress and is still waiting for "their" money after years of litigation.
The anomaly among the old guard is Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't like litigation. They've worked hard to settle most lawsuits, usually under a non-disclosure agreement to protect the identity of their patents. Who knows what would happen if all 265 of the patents claimed by Microsoft to be infringed by Linux were known? Why, Linux and free software developers might write around them!
Microsoft has found a way to create a revenue stream from Android that is estimated to be around $100 million a year. Why did they do this? Microsoft almost completely missed the smartphone market with their own operating system. The efforts from Redmond have netted agreements from nearly every Android device maker except, Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google. Microsoft has shown zero willingness to sue Google directly. I wonder why.
The old guard may think they can win the game with patents, but the technology industry is catching on to the game. The USPTO is taking a beating in the press for its willingness to issue so many patents for ideas rather than inventions. They are starting to work with technology industries to address their concerns and that could help to clean up the mess they created.
The first mover advantage goes to the people who execute their ideas and do it well. Shareholders have noticed and stock values agree. Anyone hoping for their patents to rescue them and their old guard business model is resting on a false hope.
In contrast, Google is reporting 31% income growth. Other online companies are reporting growth as well. Why?
This blog was written in Blogger, an online service. The operating system I use on this computer is Ubuntu, a free software alternative to Windows. Sure, the computer came with a Windows license, but I wanted a choice. I'm writing this blog article in Chrome, a free browser that runs on all consumer operating systems. All of it is free, much of it is free as in freedom. The online companies are running their businesses on free software, too. Linux, Apache, Javascript, Python. They are also using free protocols, TCP/IP, HTTP, and many other open standards.
That is what the old guard is missing. The old guard, loaded up to the eyeballs with name recognition, experience and know-how, are not moving fast enough to keep up with the disrupters. The disrupters are companies like Google, eBay, Facebook, and Twitter. They don't make their money selling software in a box with a license that hardly anyone ever reads.
The disrupters make their money by selling something people now want. Software that consumers never have to update. Software that is free. Service that is second to none.
I note also, that there is one other thing that the old guard has to fend off the disrupters: patents. Tens of thousands of patents. God only knows how many patents they actually own as the USPTO has been operating at or near a 90% patent application approval rate for a few years now. The old guard has been applying for patents on any idea that happens to pass the lips of someone in a product planning meeting.
The patent fight hasn't met much success. Oracle sued Google over Android for patent infringement and came away empty handed. Apple has two lawsuits against Samsung in progress and is still waiting for "their" money after years of litigation.
The anomaly among the old guard is Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't like litigation. They've worked hard to settle most lawsuits, usually under a non-disclosure agreement to protect the identity of their patents. Who knows what would happen if all 265 of the patents claimed by Microsoft to be infringed by Linux were known? Why, Linux and free software developers might write around them!
Microsoft has found a way to create a revenue stream from Android that is estimated to be around $100 million a year. Why did they do this? Microsoft almost completely missed the smartphone market with their own operating system. The efforts from Redmond have netted agreements from nearly every Android device maker except, Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google. Microsoft has shown zero willingness to sue Google directly. I wonder why.
The old guard may think they can win the game with patents, but the technology industry is catching on to the game. The USPTO is taking a beating in the press for its willingness to issue so many patents for ideas rather than inventions. They are starting to work with technology industries to address their concerns and that could help to clean up the mess they created.
The first mover advantage goes to the people who execute their ideas and do it well. Shareholders have noticed and stock values agree. Anyone hoping for their patents to rescue them and their old guard business model is resting on a false hope.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Musings in Costco
I'm an early shopper. I like to get Costco as the doors open to avoid the crowds. I do this because I like ample parking, short lines and to avoid the poor man who says, "please don't hit me with your cart, I've already been hit 3 times."
Costco represents a sort of irony of the human condition to me. Although I enjoy shopping there, it reminds of the fragility of the mind in so many ways. In Costco, we don't just buy something for today, we buy a big box of it to keep it in stock. So if I buy an 8-pack of Black Pearl Olives, I have enough, right?
An interesting thing happens to my mind when I've bought enough of anything. I have no desire to buy any more. When I look in my pantry and see that I have enough, I don't go looking for something else to buy. I don't tell myself that I need to stock up for the post-apocalypse.
Yet, when I first walk into Costco, I am confronted with giant TVs. Tee-Vees. I remember when 47" tee-vees were cool. Even at 47 inches, I marveled at the fact that it was nearly impossible to find a cathode ray tube tee-vee that big. But jeez! A 47-inch screen? Where am I going to put that? Well, I knew damn well where I was going to put it. Would I ever find time to watch it? I did buy one, but not at Costco.
That was a few years ago. Today, the largest tee-vee on display at Costco is 80 inches. 80! That's a diagonal measurement of course, but who cares? That's man-cave kit! I sometimes wonder about the physics of how to make the screen responsive to the inputs so that one side of the screen doesn't move faster than the rest. I mean, we're talking about light-speed, right?
So as I look at the mental gymnastics one must achieve to walk through Costco, I have to wonder. On the one hand, I can look at products on the shelf and make a mental note about it as I pass by..."Olives. Yup. Got plenty of those." But then I'm still thinking of the tee-vee. "Holy shee-it! 80 inches! Where am I going to put that thing? I'll never be able to talk my wife into getting one of those!...Besides, I've already got a 42" tee-vee. Sigh."
For many people, the mind has almost zero defense against the suggestion of buying a giant tee-vee. It is the ultimate eye-candy for the mind. For some of us, we can take solace in knowing that we have enough mayonaise or Tobasco sauce or paper towels since we got a big box of that a few weeks ago. But that 80-inch tee-vee? Where's my American Express card?
A few years ago during the Christmas shopping season, as I walked through the doors at Costco, I began to notice this irony. I'm surrounded by shiny stuff, textiles, kitchen gadgets and big screen tee-vees, a perfectly set miasma of suggestions and pleas to "BUY ME!!!". Then I noticed that Wall-E was playing on the tee-vees. That is irony.
If you don't know the story of Wall-E, you need to see it to really get a sense of what I'm talking about. Wall-E is the story of a semi-conscious robot in the post-apocalypse. Wall-E is set at some time in the distant future when Earth has become a full-on desert planet, where blues and greens have disappeared after humans have exhausted every resource needed to sustain life.
The moment I saw Wall-E playing on a giant tee-vee at Costco, I knew that buying another tee-vee or some other doo-dad isn't going to make me feel any better than I already feel now. I already have enough.
Costco represents a sort of irony of the human condition to me. Although I enjoy shopping there, it reminds of the fragility of the mind in so many ways. In Costco, we don't just buy something for today, we buy a big box of it to keep it in stock. So if I buy an 8-pack of Black Pearl Olives, I have enough, right?
An interesting thing happens to my mind when I've bought enough of anything. I have no desire to buy any more. When I look in my pantry and see that I have enough, I don't go looking for something else to buy. I don't tell myself that I need to stock up for the post-apocalypse.
Yet, when I first walk into Costco, I am confronted with giant TVs. Tee-Vees. I remember when 47" tee-vees were cool. Even at 47 inches, I marveled at the fact that it was nearly impossible to find a cathode ray tube tee-vee that big. But jeez! A 47-inch screen? Where am I going to put that? Well, I knew damn well where I was going to put it. Would I ever find time to watch it? I did buy one, but not at Costco.
That was a few years ago. Today, the largest tee-vee on display at Costco is 80 inches. 80! That's a diagonal measurement of course, but who cares? That's man-cave kit! I sometimes wonder about the physics of how to make the screen responsive to the inputs so that one side of the screen doesn't move faster than the rest. I mean, we're talking about light-speed, right?
So as I look at the mental gymnastics one must achieve to walk through Costco, I have to wonder. On the one hand, I can look at products on the shelf and make a mental note about it as I pass by..."Olives. Yup. Got plenty of those." But then I'm still thinking of the tee-vee. "Holy shee-it! 80 inches! Where am I going to put that thing? I'll never be able to talk my wife into getting one of those!...Besides, I've already got a 42" tee-vee. Sigh."
For many people, the mind has almost zero defense against the suggestion of buying a giant tee-vee. It is the ultimate eye-candy for the mind. For some of us, we can take solace in knowing that we have enough mayonaise or Tobasco sauce or paper towels since we got a big box of that a few weeks ago. But that 80-inch tee-vee? Where's my American Express card?
A few years ago during the Christmas shopping season, as I walked through the doors at Costco, I began to notice this irony. I'm surrounded by shiny stuff, textiles, kitchen gadgets and big screen tee-vees, a perfectly set miasma of suggestions and pleas to "BUY ME!!!". Then I noticed that Wall-E was playing on the tee-vees. That is irony.
If you don't know the story of Wall-E, you need to see it to really get a sense of what I'm talking about. Wall-E is the story of a semi-conscious robot in the post-apocalypse. Wall-E is set at some time in the distant future when Earth has become a full-on desert planet, where blues and greens have disappeared after humans have exhausted every resource needed to sustain life.
The moment I saw Wall-E playing on a giant tee-vee at Costco, I knew that buying another tee-vee or some other doo-dad isn't going to make me feel any better than I already feel now. I already have enough.
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Precipitous Fall of Apple Stock
Dean Baker notes with interest that Apples stock has had a precipitous decline since September of last year. While his article is well informed about the fact that Apple can't seem to find a place to invest its money, I think there is another factor that is at work against the value of Apple stock: patent aggression.
Apple has become an incredibly vexatious patent aggressor. The decline seems to have started around the time that Apple was able to fool a jury into thinking that it deserved a $1B damages award from Samsung for alleged patent infringements.
The litigation has highlighted the trivial nature of the patents in question. For example, there is one design patent for a tablet in the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners. Yes, Apple is fighting over that. Apple has also seen the damages award cut by more than $400 million by the judge due to errors made by the jury. The verdict might not have gone so far in favor of Apple had it not been for a jury foreman who wasn't completely forthcoming about his history with Samsung prior to selection for jury duty. A new damages trial is likely.
The most interesting aspect of the first suit against Samsung (yes, there is more than one) is Apple's insistence that Samsung be ordered to pay damages on patents that already have preliminary USPTO rulings of invalidity. Apple is hoping that they can get damages for infringements on patents that are very like to see final rulings of invalidity. How fair is that?
Apple is engaged in a desperate nuclear war against Samsung, one of the largest phone makers in the world, and Android, which now comprises more than 75% of the mobile phone market. I think that astute shareholders are aware of Apple's litigation tactics and can see that Apple can't compete against foreign companies without US government assistance.
When Apple can let go of their patents and get interested in creating new products again, I surmise that investors will take interest. Until then, Apple is likely to follow the prophecy of Steve Jobs who vowed to destroy Android with every dollar at his disposal, without actually destroying Android.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
My Favorite Blog - Groklaw
For more than ten years now, I've been reading Groklaw.net. I can't remember how I found it. I just know that when I read the first article and laughed, I was in the right place. Anyone who can talk about court cases, technology and make a great joke in passing is alright. That someone would be Pamela Jones, the woman who started it all back in 2003.
Groklaw started out as a blog for the simple purpose of following the intricacies of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit. The first article, "SCO Falls Downstairs, Hitting its Head on Every Step", shows the enormity of what The SCO Group was attempting to perpetrate upon the Linux Community. But it is also a great example of the dedication to accuracy and patience that the Linux Community and Pamela Jones have for their work. All that with a sense of humor and irreverence.
The Linux Community rallied behind Groklaw to chase down every unsealed filing in that lawsuit and convert it to text for all to see. They located references all over the web to dispute the claims in the filings and the complaint itself. Volunteers went to the courthouse to witness the proceedings. If there was ever a more cordial opponent (or ally, depending on your perspective) in any proceeding, you'd find it in Groklaw.
Their enthusiasm and spirit of cooperation is contagious. It makes for a very readable blog and the comments to their articles are no exception. Over the years, they have built an archive of legal papers and proceedings that are hard to match anywhere else. Except maybe the Library of Congress, where they are now archived.
As the SCO lawsuits wound down and it became clear that despite their claims to contrary, they did not own the copyrights to UNIX, the Linux Community found other adversaries to follow: Microsoft, Nokia, Apple, and a variety of patent trolls.
Pamela Jones is no longer a regular writer there, getting a well-deserved rest from such a tremendous undertaking. A task that required unrelenting perseverance in pursuit of the goal: to get Linux in the the free and clear of any adversary. Groklaw is now overseen by Mark Webbink, among many others. Some of you may remember that Webbink was the first General Counsel to Red Hat.
I continue to read this blog on a daily basis to see what new legal news is afoot. Groklaw has provided excellent coverage of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuits and the Oracle v. Google lawsuit over Android. The coverage you see there will go well beyond what the mainstream press will let on to you. Groklaw also covers the patent troll controversies and continues to work toward the elimination of software patents in all their forms so that free software remains free for all.
That's just a sample of what I like about Groklaw.
Groklaw started out as a blog for the simple purpose of following the intricacies of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit. The first article, "SCO Falls Downstairs, Hitting its Head on Every Step", shows the enormity of what The SCO Group was attempting to perpetrate upon the Linux Community. But it is also a great example of the dedication to accuracy and patience that the Linux Community and Pamela Jones have for their work. All that with a sense of humor and irreverence.
The Linux Community rallied behind Groklaw to chase down every unsealed filing in that lawsuit and convert it to text for all to see. They located references all over the web to dispute the claims in the filings and the complaint itself. Volunteers went to the courthouse to witness the proceedings. If there was ever a more cordial opponent (or ally, depending on your perspective) in any proceeding, you'd find it in Groklaw.
Their enthusiasm and spirit of cooperation is contagious. It makes for a very readable blog and the comments to their articles are no exception. Over the years, they have built an archive of legal papers and proceedings that are hard to match anywhere else. Except maybe the Library of Congress, where they are now archived.
As the SCO lawsuits wound down and it became clear that despite their claims to contrary, they did not own the copyrights to UNIX, the Linux Community found other adversaries to follow: Microsoft, Nokia, Apple, and a variety of patent trolls.
Pamela Jones is no longer a regular writer there, getting a well-deserved rest from such a tremendous undertaking. A task that required unrelenting perseverance in pursuit of the goal: to get Linux in the the free and clear of any adversary. Groklaw is now overseen by Mark Webbink, among many others. Some of you may remember that Webbink was the first General Counsel to Red Hat.
I continue to read this blog on a daily basis to see what new legal news is afoot. Groklaw has provided excellent coverage of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuits and the Oracle v. Google lawsuit over Android. The coverage you see there will go well beyond what the mainstream press will let on to you. Groklaw also covers the patent troll controversies and continues to work toward the elimination of software patents in all their forms so that free software remains free for all.
That's just a sample of what I like about Groklaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)