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:

• 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.

The GPL creates a completely voluntary system of software development. If you find software that you like that is covered under the GPL, you are free to choose if you want to partake in the 4 freedoms or not. It's entirely up to you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We're still talking about Gitmo?

I can't believe we're still talking about Gitmo. The New York Times has released a letter from an inmate who's been there since 2002, has never been charged with a crime and has never had a trial. What a miscarriage of justice.

How could it be that in the second term of office, President Obama has not shut Gitmo down? Maybe he'd really like to shut it down, maybe not. I used to wonder if the mess left behind by George Bush was so bad that there was no way it could be shut down in a single term of presidency.

It may be that Obama doesn't have a choice but to keep it open. There is not enough information available to the public to find out. I'm reminded of the song, "We Won't Get Fooled Again", where we learn that the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Could it be that no matter who we put into office, they will always answer to someone else besides the voters? Will that ever change?

I think it could. Larry Lessig's video shows us a way how to do it.

From Gitmo to the financial meltdown to the LIBOR scandal and on and on, we see a long string of abuses intended to deprive the common man of his security and to subvert his pursuit of happiness. When the terms of the debate and the players who can participate are dictated by 0.05% of the population, we're going to have trouble.

Consider the fortunes of America as we became dependent on proprietary software from Microsoft. Microsoft took this dependency and forced its will upon us. Then along comes free software like Linux. First we get a choice in servers and the servers now run the vast majority of the Internet. Now they're running the vast majority of the mobile phones.

How did this happen? Because the number of people involved in the decision of which software to use was effectively removed from the hands of a very small group of people in a single corporation. The inputs for that decision has been distributed all over the world. And when the number of people participating in a decision making process increases, so do their fortunes improve. As they decrease, so too, their fortunes.

We've solved the problem on the software side. In less than a decade, Microsoft will be reduced to irrelevancy because people will notice, desire and pursue the freedom they get by directing their inputs into free software. By the same token, people will, when presented with the alternative to the current system, seek a form of government that gives them more voice in the determination of their fate.

Gitmo is what happens when a tiny slice of the American population gets to decide the terms and conditions of political discourse. Gitmo is just a start as long as the condition persists. The condition is fatal and progressive.

It is up to us to make a change. Where do we go from here?

The Freedom of rasbmc on Pi

I have a Samsung Blue-Ray DVD player that supports 3-D playback. The Samsung player supports a wide range of apps, notably, Pandora and Netflix, both of which have a dedicated button on the remote control. If I bought a DVD player that plays DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, why is there no DVD button? Why do I need to navigate a series of menus just to play a DVD?

Who knows? Maybe Samsung could only get the rights to the content at Netflix and Pandora if they committed to dedicating a button on the remote control. This could be the technological equivalent of a quid pro quo.

I noticed something else about the Samsung DVD player. No support for the Linux Ext4 file system. Seems odd considering that a) Samsung is a huge supporter of Linux and is a Platinum member of the Linux foundation and; b) Samsung uses the Linux kernel in this particular DVD player. I asked them about it on their Facebook page and they suggested that I call their support line to get help. Look, this is stuff that should just work for dummies like me.

Now I could probably figure out how to root my DVD player with a few minutes searching on Google. But why fight a vendor who doesn't really want me to do that, anyway?

Instead, I bought a $35 computer called the Rasberry Pi. I also bought an SD card, a powered USB hub, an HDMI cable and spent hours working with various distributions of XBMC to settle on the rasbmc. Sure, the total came out to more than $85 - the cost of the DVD player that I now struggle with. It will total something like $20 more once I can convince my wife that we need to get a wireless N adapter for the rasbmc.

Nevertheless, there is a certain satisfaction in learning how to get this thing working the way I wanted it to. I tested a fair number of distributions, and discovered which one I liked the best. I learned that documentation isn't always complete so I had to improvise. For example, I needed the password for the pi user set up on the rasbmc machine. Why? The password listed in the documentation doesn't work. I tried many times to get it to work to no avail. A quick search revealed that I could blank that password with a simple edit to the /etc/shadow file. (A word to the unwary: if anyone should get physical access to your file system, even on Linux, kiss your security goodbye.)

Once I got that figured out, I did a little digging to review rsync and sync the files from my media collection to the rasbmc. My next plan is to write a bash script that will do this automatically and eliminate the orphaned files and directories on the player that no longer match the source directory on the source machine after I clean up my collection. Rsync is tons of fun.

I also found that if I want to stream 720p video, I will need a wireless N network adapter. Then I can get that clean picture I've come to expect on our TV. I like YouTube and though there is a YouTube app on the DVD Player, the rasbmc app blows the Samsung app away. I want the freedom. If I pick up a little Python, I can learn how to improve the app and share that with the community. That just doesn't happen on the Samsung DVD player.

There is also a Pandora App, but I haven't gotten that to work yet. I think there is still some work to do on it. I also found the Internet Archive for both video and audio works that you probably aren't going to find on *any* DVD player.

It's important to keep in mind that the copyright holders get to determine which technology can play their content and on terms they desire. That's why Samsung and any other DVD or Blu-Ray machine manufacturer is so constrained and confined. The copyright holders want a captive audience for their content. Sure, you could get something that just works, but you may miss out on certain freedoms.

The rasbmc has no such limitations and we're free to use it as is or modify it as we see fit. Or we can use another device that limits our freedoms. The choice is ours to make.

Why I chose Linux over Windows

I don't use Windows at home anymore. I use Linux now. Though there are many reasons why I use Linux, I would like to share some of my experience in the hopes that others may benefit from it, even if they never make the switch to Linux.

I use Linux to exercise my freedom of choice in operating systems. Although I purchased my computer with Windows installed, I felt compelled to image my new computer so that I could restore the original condition later. You know, just in case I ever wanted to sell it to someone else later. They just might want to use Windows.

Free software is not just free as in beer. It's free as in freedom. Free software can make a perfect, compressed image of my hard disk and store it as a set of files. Once the image has been made, I'm free to blow away Windows and install Linux. To image my hard disk, I used Clonezilla and stored my hard disk image on a high capacity USB drive.

My first choice is Ubuntu Linux. I've been using Ubuntu instead of Windows since 2007 and never looked back. I've tried a fair number of distributions and after finding the others wanting, I settled on Ubuntu. Even Ubuntu Server is my preferred server, but I digress. I've tried KDE, Gnome 2.x and Gnome Shell to name a few desktops. They all have their merits, but my choice is Gnome Shell (3.0) for its minimalist simplicity.

Gnome allows me to press the Windows key (ha ha) and type one or two characters to run the program of choice. It has very easy desktop management and for those who know something about javascript, it's very customizable, even if you don't know javascript. I don't really need to hop up my desktop and make it do all sorts of fancy stuff. There is enough eye candy in Gnome Shell in stock configuration to keep it appealing.

I need to get some work done, so I use Chrome as my browser of choice. Google holds periodic contests to see if anyone can crack it. They even release their latest updates a few days before the contest just to clean up and see if anyone can find something that has been overlooked. It's the best browser I've ever used and I have no plans to change.

I also have a fair number of tools I can run within Chrome and they're all in the cloud. From word processing to blogging, to spreadsheets - I can get to my documents wherever I happen to be. I do all my email in the cloud, too.

Sure, it's easy to worry about privacy, but Google has been quite circumspect about my privacy and has even raised serious challenges to the the notorious National Security Letters that are so loved by Homeland Security. I'm very comfortable with the trade of privacy for applications that just run and run well, with Google. Their ads are inconspicuous, their applications work great and their search is beyond compare.

When I want to work on files that exist on my hard drive, then there is LibreOffice. I use it for journaling, writing occasional snail mail correspondence, spreadsheets and some flowcharts.

For personal finance, there is GNUCash. Free software, free to use, compatible with most banks for downloading transactions and perfectly capable of managing the finances of multi-million dollar companies. For me, it's just right for what I need to do.

Sometimes I do a little image processing with the GNU Image Manipulation Program (the GIMP). For example, I made a vision board with the Gimp and used it as a desktop background for my machine. Very cool.

I have a choice of music player for fun. Rhythmbox and Amarok are the most popular and Banshee has a significant following, too. They all can play from the hard disk or stream music. They are also compatible with iPods and the like as well as Android. BTW, I'm not much of a gamer, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. There is a Steam client for Ubuntu, so if you're a gamer, you might want to check that out.

On the command line, there are thousands of tools to use for managing your files. The Linux bash shell contains the basic tools for managing a file system: ls, cp, mkdir, and rm, to name a few. But what really makes life fun with Linux are tools like rsync, to synchronize directories; grep for finding text in files, and; ssh for connecting to remote systems that are running Linux or UNIX.

I can even write simple programs for getting stuff done using bash scripting. I write my scripts with a deceptively simple text editor called vim. In fact, I use a script to keep track of all my favorite programs in the event that I have to re-install my operating system for an upgrade. Every time I find a program I like, I add it to this script as "apt-get install -y ". Then when I need to put all my favorite programs on a new install, I run this script and the programs are all installed automatically. 

For server builds, I like to run the history command and redirect output to a file. Then I can edit the resulting file in vim to create a new script that will configure the machine the way I want for the next build. BTW, vim is great for improving typing accuracy.

Anyway, I could go on, but that is enough for now. If you find that a term is unfamiliar and you want to learn more, use that term in a search on your search engine of choice. Feel free to contact me if you would like to learn more, too.

Patently Obvious

The US Patent system has been revered in our country as an institution that protects the small business inventor and provides incentives for bringing innovations to market. In recent years, the US Patent system, and the US Patent Office have been subjected to greatly increased scrutiny and criticism. What exactly is the catalyst for so much furor over the patent system and its administration?

One point of criticism is the huge backlog of patents that have yet to be processed by the USPTO. At one point, the backlog was more than 700,000 patents as of 2009. The backlog is considerably lower now, due to new procedures at the patent office. According to an article by Mike Masnick at TechDirt, the backlog reduction has little to do with higher quality patents and a greater rate of rejection. In fact, the USPTO has lowered their standards to facilitate the approval of a greater number of patents.

Masnick says that there are few if any incentives for patent examiners to reject patents. Worse, there seems to be no such thing as a truly final rejection of a patent application - applications are routinely re-submitted in the hopes of wearing the examiners down. In 2001, the approval rate was close to 100%. In 2009, it was about 90%. There is no doubt that many of these patents are vague, overly broad and harmful to downstream innovation.

It seems that the USPTO has become a rubber stamp, approving patent applications rather than taking up the fight to defend their rejections.

In America, we have 3 branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. During the 20th century, American government relied more and more upon administrative agencies and did so for a good reason. Administrative agencies keep the courts clear so that citizens could get justice without resorting to legal process. Unfortunately, our USPTO has decided that rejecting patents is not worth the fight, deferring to the courts to figure out if a patent is valid or infringed.

There is a problem with that. The rules of evidence in patent law are tilted so far in favor of patent holders, that there is more incentive to settle a patent suit than to fight it. Worse, there are so many patents that it's expensive to do a search of patents before you embark on creating a new product. And here's the kicker: patents are intentionally written in broad, vague language to ensnare as many infringers as possible.

It has often been said that government regulation can be bad for the economy. Maybe so, but I don't see anyone identifying patents as a form of regulation. Jefferson is said to have reluctantly approved of the idea of those "embarrassing monopolies" known as patents. He said that a patent system is fine as long as patents are approve rarely and only with very good reason.

It is time to recognize patents as a form of private regulation enforced by government. Considering the success of free software and other forms of collaboration, it seems that the cost of patents are not worth the incentives they provide to innovate. Given the rate of innovation where people freely collaborate together, I think its time we abolished patents.

Google has always been about choice

There is considerable interest and concern about the dominance of Google. While is it is true that they are everywhere, on the computer, on the phone, crawling the World Wide Web and collecting terabytes of content, they have always been mindful of choice. They are now the subject of an FTC investigation for antitrust on two fronts. One for Google's alleged anti-competitive use of patents to ban certain products from the US market and second, for their dominance in search.

What follows is a letter I wrote to the FTC in response to the threats that these investigations pose:

Sirs,

I have read in the news that you're considering an antitrust investigation into Google for their use of patents to ban certain products from market. While most of the news concerning FTC antitrust investigations of Google centered on search, it is only today that I learned that your department is considering an investigation of the alleged abuse of patents by Google.

With regard to Google's dominance of search, I think it is worth considering that it is nearly impossible to eliminate the competition in search. While FairSearch complains that Google is dominant in the search industry, they miss an important point: If I want to use a different search engine, I can. As long as robots can crawl websites, anyone can build a robot to crawl websites, compile the results and make them available in a search engine.

It is important to note the loose alliance between Microsoft and FairSearch. Microsoft has an undeniable interest in gaining access to Google search algorithms. If access to Google search algorithms were to be made public, Microsoft would argue that since it is not dominant in search, that it should not be required to disclose Microsoft search algorithms. This entire campaign is designed to keep Google on the defensive through attacks from proxies like FairSearch.

With regard to your pending patent investigation, it should be noted that Microsoft has sought and secured patent license agreements with every Android manufacturer except one, Motorola Mobility. Microsoft and Nokia are working with a third party, MOSAID, to extract licensing fees from Android and Linux developers. This is well documented in litigation Microsoft initiated against Barnes and Noble - B&N has since settled with Microsoft. When 2 or more companies work together to eliminate competition through anti-competitive practices, such as patent trolling, isn't that a basis for antitrust investigation? 

Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, and Apple are all giants in the tech industry. Google is the upstart and is the target of a concerted series of legal attacks against Android and Google in general. They are all using patents, a form of regulation, to mitigate or neutralize the competitive threat that is Google. Microsoft has already been convicted of using their industry dominance to eliminate choices in computer operating systems. Apple is poised to do the same. Nokia is losing market share due to some very poor management decisions. Oracle is dominant in the database industry and seems somewhat unhappy that it missed an opportunity to create a smartphone operating system. All of them are relatively old companies and have found that "when you're young, you innovate, when you're old, you litigate" in the tech industry. They are all litigating against Google/Android.

Google doesn't need to use patents to compete. Google has only used patents defensively and will retaliate against those who use patents against Google. A casual observation of the Motorola Mobility litigation will show that Motorola Mobility litigation has only been targeted at those who initiated litigation against Android or Google. Google doesn't care which operating system I use on my computer. Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle and Apple all seem very concerned that I might decide to use Android or Linux on my computer or smartphone. They have all chosen to exercise litigation rather than innovation as a means of competing against Android and Linux. 

I think that the apparent collusion between all the major industry players working against Google is a far more worthy target of investigation for antitrust concerns than anything that Google is doing. Google is agnostic about which device or which operating system we use to search. Google only wants to make it easier to use Google search, no matter how we do it. My experience after trying Bing, Yahoo and even Alta Vista, is that Google search offers the best search experience I have ever found. Google supports open standards better than any other company. Open standards promote competition. When Google uses open standards, open source software and leverages openness to compete, that is no crime.

I urge you to reconsider your investigations of Google and instead, investigate all of the companies that are litigating against Google. Are they communicating with each other? Are they timing their lawsuits with each other? What do they have to gain, collectively, against Google? Is is fair for a group of companies to gang up on Google for competitive advantage?

These are questions I urge to you consider before you launch an investigation or any lawsuit against Google.

Thank you.

Scott Dunn

[End of email to FTC]

So, what do you think? Did Google break antitrust laws?

A Powerful Proposition

Last weekend, I had the good fortune to watch an amazing video of a lecture given by Dr. Daniel Nocera. It's an hour and 18 minutes long, but it is totally worth it because there is real hope for mankind in that video. What is it about? It's about new technology that allows us to capture solar energy and store it for future use.

I read about Nocera's work a couple of years ago. He and his team have done some pioneering work in the field of artificial photosynthesis. Notice that the work is government funded. Why didn't the private sector come up with this first? Maybe they were too busy thinking about maximizing profits before humanity.

Here are the basics:

• Use a light activated catalyst to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
• Capture the hydrogen and store it for use later.
• Burn the hydrogen to power the home.
• Use the hydrogen to fuel a car or use power generated by burning the hydrogen to charge the car.

Imagine a world where every home has a power source independent of the power company. Imagine an economy independent of the hydrocarbon fuels we now use. Now imagine that all of the infrastructure we used to use to distribute power as electricity and fuel is no longer needed. Artificial photosynthesis would free up giant chunks of the economy dedicated to distributing oil, gas and coal. It would also free up all the money, time and effort spent designing nuclear power plants and passing commission reviews of each plant. The health benefits of such change would be enormous.

The jaw grows slack just considering even some of the possibilities. The only new tech is the catalyst - everything else is off-the-shelf parts. Artificial photosynthesis decentralizes energy production. Imagine what happens to political power when energy production is distributed by the sun.

The math presented in the video is pretty simple. We burn about 12.8 TW of power today - every day. the sun delivers 1000 TW to the earth. On land, we get about 800 TW. By 2050, we will need another 28 TW to keep humanity humming. We won't be able to build power plants fast enough to keep up. But we can fit up homes with this system to scale out billions of little power plants that run off the sun. 

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have shown very much interest in clean energy. This is especially true of the Republicans. Perhaps they forgot about Richard Nixon. Maybe they want to. While the Democrats have shown some interest in clean energy, even some lip service, I don't see them talking about a game changer like artificial photosynthesis that has been around for two whole years. Maybe they're not ready to talk about it yet.

If I were running the Green Party, *this* would be my new platform: Personal Power for everyone is attainable through artificial photosynthesis. If the Democrats and Republicans won't touch this, the Green Party will be happy to take over.

Freedom of Religion

I've been thinking about religious freedom. The success of this nation depends on religious freedom. In almost every other country where people are not free to practice the religion of their choice, even not to practice at all, we find a certain homogeneity, a demand for purity and uniformity of thought among all. This lack of pluralism limits the views that can be considered in political discourse and discourages expression of dissenting views.

So it is with a heavy heart that I find that the Republicans, that Grand Ol' Party, have been promoting the idea that the United States is a Christian nation. The platform of the Texas Republican Party offers a good example. I find it hard to believe that the matter is even a subject of debate when the Constitution is so clear in the First Amendment on its face. Their words leave little doubt as to what they mean to say.

The passage, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is important enough to be the opening clause of the First Amendment. Yet, platforms of the various state chapters of the Republican Party make it clear that not only do they believe that this country is a Christian nation, they want to tear down the wall that separates church and state. That is really scary.

I wonder if they have considered the ramifications of what would happen to this country if they managed to make the United States in their vision of a Christian country. What about everyone else?

Many of the founders of this country were Christian, to be sure, but they came here to escape the religious tyranny of the King of England. They came here to practice their religion as they understood it to be. They found what works for them and stuck with it. Though many of them were Christian, some devout, they all knew the danger of a state established religion.

We have modern day examples of the danger of state sponsored religion. One need only look to Iran to see the ultimate conclusion: complete and total subjugation of women, dissent is either completely absent or hidden, and anyone who is not actively practicing the state sponsored religion is cast in a second, lower class. Is that what the Republicans are preaching? That is my impression. 

I don't want to see a state sponsored religion in these United States and I hope I never do. I do want a diversity of religions, which we now have. For it is only through human exploration of spirituality in all of its forms that we arrive at a state of mind better known as peace.

Would you like your regulation to be public or private?

I have to wonder what the GOP is talking about when they go on and on about reducing regulation. For example, during the prohibition years, there was no effective way to regulate the alcohol industry since it all went dark. Because there was no 3rd-party referee to handle grievances, the competitors resorted to gangland violence. Legalizing the business and taxing it brought it into the light and made it easier to regulate as well as providing relief for innocent bystanders. Are they suggesting that we return to a prohibition-era economic environment that is "free of government regulation"?

I'm not aware of any GOP politician that has acknowledged that when you remove government regulation, private law and regulation come into play (if you've seen one do that, let me know). Consider for a moment the recent ruling from the Supreme Court that permits corporations to eliminate the right to class action lawsuits in their terms and conditions for use of their services. That ruling has emboldened corporations to introduce their own forms of regulations. This is particularly evident among cellular phone companies with their data caps, sharing plans, and customer data sharing arrangements. Net Neutrality? Totally neutered.

In this context, I have to ask, which source of regulation does the GOP prefer, government regulation or private regulation? Either one can become quite onerous if we let them. The difference is that I can vote out the guys in government who set policy. I can't do that with corporations. In corporations, the members of the board of directors make decisions that set policy. Even if I own stock, I don't really get a say in their decision making process. Worse, corporations are a creature of government, below everything and everyone else. At least they should be.

Several Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rulings have turned our relationships with corporations upside down. The first ruling came in 1890 when the SCOTUS recognized corporations as persons. Second, the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations can make unlimited political contributions without disclosure because money is speech. The third came with a SCOTUS ruling preempting a state law that prohibited the exclusion of class action suits in contracts. Don't even get me started on patents.

The GOP lacks complete sincerity and honesty if they continue to omit private regulation in debates of public policy on the subject of regulation. I wonder if they will ever bring it up.

Redwood Road

I'm a California native by birth and I've been driving for 33 years, 28 of them in California. I've seen a lot of pretty nutty driving in California, but the things that I've seen in Utah make California pale by comparison.

As a California native, I'm used to seeing people drive pretty much the same all year round. But here in Utah, things are different. In summer, drivers can be aggressive, rude and even indifferent to the plight of other drivers. But when the snow comes in winter, the same drivers suddenly get all polite.

One notable exception would be SUV drivers. While I'm doing 20-25 MPH on the freeway in heavy snow, some SUVs are blazing by at 40-50 MPH. I remember asking about snow tires for my first winter here and I learned that common sense would serve me better than snow tires. Those SUVs? From time to time, I would pass them in a snowstorm as they faced oncoming traffic the wrong way on the freeway after a spin-out or on the side of the freeway – the wheels are spinning, but they're upside down. Tire salesmen I've talked to referred to that phenomenon as “SUV confidence”.

On the way to work one day, I was cut off by an SUV. As we came to a stoplight I saw that there was a bumper sticker on the back that said, “SUV drivers do it without looking!”. Fair enough. I considered that to be a fluke and went on my way. Only a few minutes later, another SUV cuts me off. This SUV had a different bumper sticker that read, “If you don't like the way that I'm driving, get off the sidewalk!”

Hmm. Is this the start of a trend? I'm less than a half mile from work when a giant, pearly white Lincoln Aviator abruptly pulls in front of me to be first in line at the next red light. Sure enough, their bumper sticker makes a finer point with, “What was that?”

Anyone familiar with the Redwood Drive-in Theatre on the west side of Redwood near 3800 South knows what a circus that place can be. Lines can form beyond the curb and extend from the entrance and back up to the north end of the block. In the painted center island in front of the theater, lines can form and back up the other way to 3800 South. Numerous times, I've seen multiple vehicles making simultaneous, desperate left turns in front of me or other drivers with less than a second or two to spare just to get into or to leave the theater. And that is just for the swap meet. I've come to think of them as the Stunt Drivers of Utah.

One particularly interesting habit I've seen looks like this: a driver on a side street will make a left turn to merge into traffic on the opposite side of Redwood Road. But he's not using an ordinary island as a place to wait for traffic to clear so he can merge. No, that won't do, no sireee! Instead, he's waiting in a left turn lane – facing the wrong way. I've encountered this head on and when I see them in front of me, I'm like deer stuck in headlights. The other driver? He does this every day and knows exactly what to do. He checks his mirror, waits for the traffic to clear, and then merges safely, like nothing special had happened.

The most curious incident I've seen though is very similar to the example above, but with a twist. A driver makes a left turn from the apartment driveway at 3860 South to head north on Redwood Road. He is facing the wrong way in the left turn lane but proceeds anyway. It's dark, so as he proceeds up along the left turn lane, he doesn't notice the small island in front of him on approach to 3800 South. He takes out a small post and strands his car on top of the island with the tires straddling the island. When I came upon him he was on his cell phone calling for help.

After seeing that, I found that my nomenclature was inadequate to describe some of the drivers of Utah. Now I think of them as the Stunted Drivers of Utah.

Drive safely.

The Failed Promise of Patents

Some say that patents are a prohibition on competition against an inventor, but I believe that patents very much prohibit cooperation among innovators. With regard to disclosure of the invention, the general consensus among many who do read patents is that they incorporate language that is so broad and vague, it is often hard to determine just what invention is actually disclosed. That vague language prevents cooperation among innovators with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

To put it differently, a person practiced in the arts described by a patent would be hard pressed to recreate the invention disclosed by a patent. This is particularly true of software patents which are so general as to be a patent on an idea rather than a specific invention. The goal in writing patents, it seems, is not to disclose the design of an invention, but to get a private monopoly on an idea.


Patent apologists implore us with the notion that without patents, inventions would not be disclosed, keeping inventions secret. The technology available today allows for reverse engineering down to a very minute scale. Given enough incentive and eyeballs, an invention will eventually be reverse engineered, and 99% of the time, we have the resources now to do it. Note how every DRM system ever released has been broken. There is even recent news of a workaround for HDMI encryption.


Besides, an invention with a design that is unavoidably disclosed is ripe for sharing anyway. The best that any inventor can hope for is good execution for the first mover advantage, even with a patent. The first few years of sales with very good execution and manufacturing will provide plenty of revenue to cover the costs of development.

Until I see conclusive evidence that patents have been a net positive for society, I remain unconvinced. Patent defenders will often point to the innovation we have seen so far, but that is innovation in *spite* of the patent system. I think they would find it difficult to show even one patent that has not hindered follow-on innovation or one that provided society with more wealth than the patent owner has gained. In sum, patents are great for litigation, not so great for innovation.

Patent Transparency

The news about Linux and Android technology is rife with stories about attacks against free software by Microsoft. The latest trend is that Microsoft has been threatening all of the major Android cellphone  manufacturers with patent litigation. To prevent litigation, Microsoft coerces Android manufacturers into entering a very restrictive license agreement with the understanding that the terms of the agreement cost less and have less uncertainty than litigation.

There is one really big problem with all of these agreements: they're all confined to secrecy through non-disclosure agreements. Through these patent licensing agreements, Microsoft is imposing their tax (alleged to be as high as $15 per unit on cell phones) on a free, open source operating system they didn't even build. This is the cost of knowing what those patents are and the cost of being "covered" by a license to practice those patents, even if they're not being practiced by the victims.

The purpose of the high licensing fees is to impose a cost on an otherwise free work of software that is greater than or equal to the cost of a Windows phone license. In other words, the message is, "Android? Say, that's a very pretty operating system you've got there. I'd hate to see anything bad happen to it. I think you'd be a lot safer if you paid us for protection and built Windows phones, too." Does the image of Marlon Brando come to mind?

Microsoft's strategy is simple on it's face: Approach a competitor with threats of a patent lawsuit. Then offer a way to eliminate the threat, but discussions only begin with a non-disclosure agreement. This way, even if negotiations fail, the patents are never revealed. It's important to keep those patents secret to prevent competitors from working around the patents. As negotiations continue to success, the result is a royalty agreement in complete secrecy, ensuring that no one else knows which patents are included or their true value based on the agreement.

This practice can be used anti-competitively and Microsoft isn't the only one doing it. To put this in perspective, in a competitive market, competitors strive to offer a better product to consumers based on price, product quality and customer service. In a combative market, participants seek to hobble or even disable their competitors to assert a private monopoly on the market. Patents were never intended as legal weapons of combat in the marketplace. They were only intended to give inventors access to capital to practice their inventions, but that's not how they're being used in business today.

It's time for some patent transparency. Patents are government issued grants of intellectual property and each patent is a matter of public record so anyone can look them up at the USPTO website (Google has just introduced a new patent search engine, too). Each patent is a monopoly on an invention. Patents are also assets that tend to substitute for research and development and customer service. Unfortunately, many patent owners have set up a shell game of corporations to make it hard to trace the true owner of the patents.

So I have a solution: all patent licensing agreements may not be kept secret by any non-disclosure agreements and that there should be no exceptions. Investors, public or private, have a right to know the true value negotiated for a patent. Investors have the right to know the impact on their investment when the company they invest in is approached by a patent aggressor, like Microsoft, or IBM, the king of patent licensing.

This proposed law should cover a few basic points. All patent licensing agreements, including out of court settlements (95% of patent cases settle out of court), and court orders, are to be made public and shall be registered with the patent office. The patent office must be notified in advance that patent licensing negotiations are about to begin, with notice of time, place and scope to ensure they eventually get a copy of the agreement resulting from negotiations. All patent agreements shall be made public in reports made to the Securities and Exchange Commission by publicly traded corporations. Any person or company contacted by a patent aggressor for royalty negotiations that are subject to a non-disclosure agreement will have standing to sue for relief. Finally, provide for refunds of all patent costs to the licensee should the patent be ruled invalid prior to expiration of the patent.

The penalty for failure to comply is termination of the patent. That should create plenty of incentive for compliance on the part of patentees.

The public has a right to know how government issued monopolies are being used to stifle competition and remove choices from the market in favor of patent owners (sometimes affectionately referred to as "patent trolls"). Removing the veil of non-disclosure agreements from patent licensing agreements will create greater transparency in a very murky market.

Moreover, competitors have a right to see how patents are being enforced in a particular market segment. With access to these agreements, competitors can see how the agreements are structured, what rights are conferred and determine the costs of entry to the market affected by a patent. They can also find ways to work around the patents to secure entry to a market without having to risk litigation first. Transparency will allow competitors to be sure they aren't infringing on patents, which is the point of patent publication in the first place.

Some are sure to cry foul. "Patents are private property! You can't do that!" Are they really? Patents are issued by the government as a temporary monopoly to the patentee. Patents are the only kind of "property" that allow you, the patentee, to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own private property. Clearly marking the true owners, the limits of the patents and the agreements relating to their licensing has no bearing on the value of a patent and would actually increase the value of the patent to the owner and society.

Congressional intent is that patents should promote the progress of the arts and sciences. A non-disclosure agreement is a sure sign that a patent aggressor has little interest in advancing the arts and sciences and is overtly thwarting the intent of Congress. It's worth noting that there is is a lot empirical evidence to show that patents have never encouraged innovation, much less advanced the progress of the sciences or the arts.

A closer inspection of patents as "property" reveals broad, general language as to the scope of the patent, making it difficult to tell where the patent begins or ends. Try reading a patent, especially a software patent, to see how it is practiced, or even how to avoid infringement. You're going to need a lawyer to help you. Even for engineers, this can be a hopeless quest.

Real property on the other hand is easier to understand. There are clear boundaries to real property and those boundaries are very well established so that everyone knows the limits of a property claim. Car ownership is just as easy to prove. But the metes and bounds of patents are about as clear as pea soup.

The law as it currently stands is very one-sided in favor of patent holders. In order to help weed out bad patents, there needs to be some penalty for gaming the system. What happens if a patent covered under a licensing agreement is eventually invalidated before the patent expires? My proposal takes this into account by providing civil remedies for a refund of all royalties paid, legal fees and other expenses resulting from any negotiations, agreements or litigation arising from enforcement of the patent upon the plaintiff. Criminal remedies shall be available in situations where the former patent holder fails to refund costs.

Because ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution (and I'm not advocating them here), there is nothing we can do about the patent agreements already in force. But the points above would go a long way towards cleaning up the fear, uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace. Perhaps we can create a voluntary patent licensing exchange so that anyone who wants to disclose previous agreements can do so, as an act of goodwill.

It is estimated that innovation has contributed 90% of GDP since 1870, with the vast majority of that innovation covered by patents issued by the government. We the People have a right to know how the patents are being used to control markets since they have a material impact on the well being of all of us.

Patents have no place in a free market. But as long as we have patents, transparency in patent royalty negotiations is essential to regulation of their use and maintaining choice in the market for consumers.

A Letter to my Congress Critters: On Copyrights

Dear Representative, 

The E-PARASITE Act and the PROTECT-IP Act, collectively known as the Internet Destruction Acts, represent yet another attempt by Big Content to impose their aging business models onto the Internet. Big Content has seen fit to fashion legislation in their own image, for their own benefit, without regard to the public. In recent years, Big Content has made steady encroachments onto the Public Domain through legislation and through misappropriation. They seem to think that consumers have no rights with regard to content, such is the attitude expressed in these Internet Destruction Acts.

These acts set aside due process rights in favor of the rights of Big Content. They set aside First Amendment rights in favor of Big Content. And they seek to create a captured audience, unable to choose which media they wish to view and where they'd like to view it.  Though Big Content benefits from and even capitalizes on copyright laws, they seem to have forgotten who the copyright laws are intended to benefit:

"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors." --- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 US 123, 1932

We the People, in the end, are the sole beneficiaries of the copyright laws. Not the multinational Big Content corporations who impose region codes on the DVDs they wish to sell, who issue DMCA takedown notices even in cases where their rights are not even proven, who have imposed DRM - a failed and broken technology that fails immediately when the authenticating servers are shut down, who have created secret agreements with Internet Service Providers to create a defacto 3-strikes law without the consent of the People and who have disregarded the will of the People at every opportunity to do so.

Big Content, and you, my representative, hear this: the only reason we still have copyright laws today is because it is the will of the People. As one of the People in this country, I urge you to vote no on these Internet Destruction Acts and others like it. They have no place in a free society. Remember, a free idea will create more jobs than an encumbered idea.

Scott Dunn

No PC Security in Vietnam

I've been on vacation in Vietnam for the last week or so. Before I got here, I recalled the state of the computers I've seen here during my last visit and came prepared this time. I brought with me Linux CDs and DVDs as well as a couple of USB drives to help the family with their computers. Today, I'm going to give a brief description of the state of the typical computer in Vietnam as I see them.

My findings are based on a pretty small sample of three computers. Despite the small sample, the uniformity of the install choices made, and the geographical disparity of all PCs suggest there is widespread agreement among the PC builders on how to best build a Windows PC. It seems that their highest priority is that the PC will function properly as a pirated copy of Windows. Every choice made by these PC builders leaves the user less secure, unable to recover Windows if the machine should fail, and more likely to fail due to the choices made. Unless otherwise stated, the conditions observed are seen in all three PCs.

First, not a single PC had a certificate of authenticity. You know that colorful little sticker you usually see on the side of your computer? That sticker is the license key for your copy of Windows. Having this key is absolutely necessary in order to install Windows and pass Windows activation. That sticker is your license for Windows unless you bought a boxed copy and left the sticker in the box. This condition leaves users unable to re-install Windows without having to take their computer to the shop so that a technician can do the work.

Automatic Updates were disabled. The obvious reason for this is to prevent Windows Genuine Advantage from being installed on the computer to check the validity of the license key on the computer. This leaves the user less secure against known security issues because Windows will not be kept up to date.

When Windows is installed for the first time, it creates a user account that is usually the administrator account for the machine. After the installation is complete, the computer will reboot and then walk you through setting up user accounts and Automatic Updates. The user accounts that are setup here are also administrator accounts. Administrator accounts have full control of every process and file on the computer.

Most Windows users are unaware of this condition, and they do not know that they should be running as users, not administrators. This is important because of the way malware installs on a computer: silently. If you are running as admin while browsing the web, and you encounter malware, or a "drive-by download", the malware will install on your computer without you even knowing what happened. After that happens, the only clue is that your PC is running a lot slower than before.

Next up is the file system. By default, Windows will format a hard drive using NTFS. NTFS assigns access controls to each folder and file. This security information assigns access permissions to each file and folder, allowing users to access their own files and prohibiting user access to files that are not theirs. This is important for security in that it prevents viruses from accessing system files and changing them - if you are not running as an administrator account.

Here in Vietnam, it is common practice to install Windows to a FAT32 file system. Some of you may find that the term "FAT32" is familiar. Some of you might even remember that FAT32 was a feature in Windows 95 and 98. Unlike NTFS, FAT32 provides no access controls to files and folders in the file system. This means that even if you are not using an administrator account, you still have access to every file on the system and can change or delete them at will (and at your own peril).

Taken together, all of these conditions add up to one very insecure computer, even with antivirus installed. The FAT32 file system allows non-administrators to access system files and change them. User accounts are admin accounts and Windows Update is disabled. This is a playground for botnets in Asia created for the very purpose of pirating Windows.

When people pirate Windows, they fail to realize the true cost of using pirated Windows. To prevent piracy, I recommend installing Linux (like Mint, or Fedora). Linux has a few qualities that you won't find in the way Windows is installed here. With Linux, you get file and folder security by default. You don't run as admin by default. And you get automatic updates by default without having to worry about Windows Genuine Advantage consuming your time and money.

Some people are starting to wake up and smell the choices, however. By one estimate, there are more than a thousand Linux users in Vietnam. I'm gonig to do a conversion today from XP to Xubuntu. Even the Vietnamese government has taken note of the opportunities afforded by Linux. Many small countries from around the world, including Vietnam, see Linux as a opportunity to create their own software industry. Linux is also a way out of dependence on Microsoft and other American software vendors. In fact, Microsoft depends on piracy to survive.

So get safe, get legal and get Linux, Vietnam.