Following is an email I just received from a friend.
Subject: I am stupid
Problem with the MacBook air is it is too small. Just realized four hours late I left it in the seatback pocket on the plane. Explicative!!!
At least he didn’t get a black eye protecting it.
My partners and I were hanging out at lunch last week when Jason brought up the question of whether or not we could patent the business method of “creating or acquiring intellectual property for the primary objection of bring lawsuits against potential infringers.”
In essence, could we patent the idea of being a patent troll? After a hearty laugh, Jason looked into it and discovered that this was not possible. Since our “proposed method” has been used in the public for more than a year, there is a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States,
While plenty of patents (applied for an issued) violate this, we decided not to stretch things in this case.
Oh well, it was fun to ponder for a couple of hours.
My partner Ryan put up another post on the Foundry Group blog about our Implicit Web theme. This is a theme that is particularly interesting and useful to me since I spend so much time in front of my computer trying to deal with and synthesize a never ending stream of data and information.
I want my computer to do more of the work for me. I want the web to figure stuff out for me. I want my computer to learn. I want my friends’ behavior and interests to inform mine. I want people I don’t know but am connected to through other people I trust to help me find things. I want a pony.
A couple of years ago my path crossed with Eric Norlin. Out of our interactions emerged a conference called Defrag. The first version of Defrag happened last fall – as is typical of my schemes, I always have an evil plan. In this case is was to get in the middle of a bunch of really smart people and hear what they think about the wide range of problems we addressed at Defrag (which was a proxy for the concept of the Implicit Web.) Eric talked about this in his post today titled On Community-driven tech conferences.
My evil plan worked great and I learned a ton. We’re doing Defrag 2008 in – surprise – 2008 (11/3 and 11/4 to be exact.) I’m continuing to spend a lot of time looking at, thinking about, and investing in the Implicit Web between now and then. And reading as much Alex Iskold as he will write.
My partner Ryan wrote a long post on the Foundry Group blog about our interest in HCI titled Theme: Human Computer Interaction (HCI).
I believe that 25 years from now we will look back on the way we used computers in 2008 and think it was quaint. For a reference point, try to remember how you used a computer in 1983 (character-based screen, excitement over "graphics", and the year before the introduction of the first Mac.) Or go back to 1978 and the dawning of the Apple II computer.
I just don’t believe that in 2033 we will be fighting with the double click speed adjustment on our mice while moving our Windows Live Writer window to the left and right so we can see our browser or pressing alt-tab so we can bring our email window to the front to quickly respond to an email. The universal TV remote control – yeah, whatever. Worrying about which server our data is on? Air traffic controllers typing on keyboards? Uh huh. 3D walkthroughs and large scale data visualization being done using a mouse and keyboard? Right.
The way we interact with these things is going to continue to change radically. While I’m hoping the future view of Skynet is wrong, I’m going to keep reading and watching as much science fiction (which I think of as "potential science fact in the future") as I can. History helps also since it lets you draw a nice, spiffy curve through the data points. With your brain, rather than with your mouse.
If you are working in this area or simply fascinated by it, holler anytime.
Dave Roberts – the VP Strategy and Marketing at Vyatta – has written a solid post on Open Source Juicer that tears apart Steve Tobak’s CNet article titled The Patent Reform Act will harm the US technology industry. There is a ton of meat in Dave’s post – which is (unfortunately) also titled "The Patent Reform Act will harm the U.S. technology industry".
Dave has 10 patents to his name, so he’s speaking from a position of someone who has spent plenty of time on the "inside of the patent game." Two telling paragraphs:
"What’s all the more infuriating about the current patent situation is that many of today’s patents go against the original social contract surrounding patents. The original goal of the patent system was to get inventors to share their innovations for the common good. In return for a limited monopoly, you, Mr. Inventor, share your invention so that We, the public, can understand how you did it and can then innovate on top of it. Rather than stifling innovation, patents were supposed to drive it forward.
Unfortunately, many patents, even the ones that are legit, would have been created independently anyway. It’s obviously a balance, but at least in the world I live in, I see patents getting in the way rather than helping me. I have never gone and looked at old patents to get new ideas for products. The only time an independent patent, one that I’m not working on filing myself, comes to my attention, it’s because somebody is getting sued for infringing it. This tells me that we have lost the original goal that patents were supposed to foster."
Great stuff Dave. Thanks for speaking out.
I love my life. I get to work on fascinating things with really smart people. And every day is different. Plus I’m married to an awesome woman (but that’s a different post.)
I spent the afternoon at the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. I’m on an advisory board for a new study on "Entrepreneurial Companies and the Patent System" being supported by the Kauffman Foundation. Tomorrow I’m speaking on a panel on the Symposium on Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.
It was a very productive afternoon. We spent several hours discussing the research project on Entrepreneurial Companies and the Patent System that is being led by Stuart Graham and Ted Sichelman. One of the areas Stuart and Ted are concentrating on are software patents. Doing real quantitative research on the impact of software patents is critical as much of the academic literature (economics, legal, and social science) is crap. The discussion was a robust one that I think was helpful to Stuart and Ted.
As I’ve been slowly making my way through the academic literature, what I’m realizing is that there are very few people that have effectively synthesized the issues from an economics, legal, and entrepreneurial point of view. There is a preponderance of anecdotal data and an overarching concern about "treating different things differently" (e.g. the perception that software and bio / pharma have to operate under the same rules.)
In addition, there are massive selection bias and survivor bias in much of the research. It’s not that the studies were necessarily poorly conceived (although some are); rather it’s incredibly difficult to get good data on the companies in any sample since so many of them are early stage, have failed, have been acquired, have had significant turnover, or have changed strategies. The cost of real data acquisition (non-anecdotal) is high and requires a real understanding of the underlying companies and market segments being studied.
It’s just messy stuff. While messy stuff is fun to study, it can also be frustrating. I’m impressed that the BCLT folks have put together a diverse advisory board – including a number of non-academic practitioners – to help them think through the best approach to this study. I’m off to dinner to hang out more with these interesting people and get a few more cracks in about my view of the invalidity of software patents.
Maybe.
The upcoming en banc session of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit happening in May is an important one. Brad Stone of the New York Times has a nice short summary of what is going on here in New Patentable Idea: A Way to Invalidate Vague Patents.
The End Software Patents Coalition has launched. Look for a lot more from me in the near future on this as my efforts to abolish software patents intensifies.
Dear all my friendly neighborhood web developers out there. Please don’t ever ask me for my Google login and password again. Instead, please implement the Google Contact API. While you are at it, please consider implementing the Windows Live Contacts API. I went looking for the Yahoo one (it’s probably in the Mail stuff somewhere) also but gave up and figured I’d just point you to the MyBlogLog API which has plenty of fun, juicy data available.
That’ll keep you busy for a while.
For those of you who read my blog, you know that I hate software patents. My partner, Jason Mendelson, began fighting me on this back in 2000 when we began working together, but a scant eight years later, he’s joined me in the crusade. In fact, he’ll be arguing this position on March 4th at the Silicon Flatirons event. Lawyers (oops, sorry Jason, ex-lawyers) are so quick to change their thinking.
Anyway, from the news of the absurd, Jason pointed out the EU court has determined that the word “Parmesan” is a protected name for cheese made solely in the Italian city of Parma. Never mind that the past 800 years of cheese production from this city hasn’t cause a stir, but evidently now, it’s big business.
And before you comment about Champagne / Sparkling Wine trademark decisions, yeah, these are stupid too.
At least the U.S. isn’t alone.