Whitney Houston remembered
Pop Diva
As a pop star turned Diva during the 80s and 90s, Whitney Houston’s star and talent was immense and rarely faltered. At the height of her recording career, she seemingly could have had whatever she wanted and could have written her own ticket. She had the look, the style, the smile and, most of all, the voice. She had an immensely powerful voice that was at once strong and powerful and sultry and smooth which could easily carry any song she put her mind to performing. She was definitely the Diva in every sense of the word. In her untimely passing on February 11th, 2012, she has left us with a legacy of number 1 hits, but more than the fact that they were number 1’s, they were just plain great songs with soaring powerful, passionate and often amazing vocals. Vocal performances that very few people can actually match and even fewer performers want to perform on the heels of her stellar performances. Despite the fact that I had never purchased a Whitney Houston CD until last week, I had heard most of her songs anyway. There was just no way not to have heard them on the radio, in stores, in restaurants or just generally out and about at her peak. You just couldn’t not hear her songs during her reign as Diva. Last week I purchased her Greatest Hits CD because I had decided I wanted to hear her catalog again as it had been quite a long while. I had no way to know that in less than a week she would be gone and I’d be writing this article.
2000’s
Fast forward to the 2000s when her veneer starts to crack and her star begins to fade (with fewer and fewer releases). Like many musicians, she had succumbed to her own vices which lead to her down the path of drug and alcohol abuse and that, unfortunately, took a toll on her voice and her body. This may or may not have contributed to her death, but it didn’t help her career in her last decade or her own health. It’s unfortunate too because she could have had a very long, strong and prosperous career if she had been able to get out from under her own vices including her rocky tumultuous relationship with Bobby Brown.
Unfortunately, Whitney’s is not the unfamiliar tale in the entertainment industry. A bright shining star with huge talent bringing in a lot of money is always attractive to those who wish to leech from that talent (and money) to keep the party going. Unfortunately, these leeches tend to do things that they think help the star remain a star. In fact, they are actually doing just the opposite by enabling such behaviors as drug and alcohol use. They do these things to help keep the Star ‘happy’, but, in fact these leeches are destroying the person behind the star and then leave the person to fend for themselves after the veneer cracks and the money dries up. After all, these stars are still people just like you and me with insecurities, frailties, personal vices and emotions. They are not just sources of cash or talent. Whitney’s final story is not unfamiliar and yet people are always surprised when a musical artist dies too early in life. It’s a sad refrain that seemingly repeats as often as a pop music hook. However, it’s a refrain that we definitely do not need to hear more than once and Whitney’s death is proof of that.
Whitney’s Legacy
Even with all of her vices and personal demons, she still managed to release a formidable catalog and rack up a large number of hits. And, that’s no small feat. This is how we should remember Whitney. As the Diva who amassed a large number of hits with her spectacular voice. We must celebrate her career, her talent and most of all her vocals. Let’s remember her as she was, the Diva with soaring high power vocals and not what her vices had led her to become. Even though her life ends both sadly and tragically right before the Grammy’s, she leaves behind a legacy at a poignant time when her career and her talent can be both celebrated and remembered perfectly by everyone. If there is such a thing as a perfect timing, she couldn’t have chosen a more ideal venue for us to celebrate her life, her works and her talent, ironically the evening just before the music industry celebrates the best and most talented musical artists, the Grammy Awards. Whitney definitely stole this show in her final curtain call.
We’ll both remember and miss you Whitney.
SOPA: Is it tortious interference?
SOPA and PIPA take aim at ‘online piracy’. Of course, the term ‘online piracy’ is defined as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon. How do you define ‘online piracy’? Well, clearly, taking copyrighted works without the owner’s permission is considered copyright infringement. We already have laws on the books that protect copyright holders. For years, these legal mechanisms have worked. Basically, the copyright owner identifies the alleged infringer and takes them to court, then proves the case (in front of a judge) that someone infringed. So why isn’t this enough? What changed? The entertainment industry wants more power.
For Hollywood and the music industry, the current legal system is not enough. Now they want to interfere with businesses’ abilities to continue to do business. Both the MPAA and the RIAA have tried various mechanisms to gain control over stopping piracy without involving the courts. The entertainment industry wants direct unfettered access into businesses to force them to stop ‘enabling’ the alleged pirates. No due process, no courts, no guilt or innocence determination in a court of law. No, all of this they want outside of the courts. They want to tell someone to stop doing something without any due diligence or fiduciary responsibility. “Oops, we made a mistake? My Bad. Tee hee.”
Legalized Tortious Interference
With SOPA, this goes one step further and effectively becomes legalized tortious interference. So what is tortious interference? Simply put, it’s when a random third party steps into a two party contract and causes one party in the contract to breach the contract for the other party. That is, the third party prevents a party in a contract from being able to fulfill their contractual obligations. How does SOPA do this? It does this by forcing banks or other financial institutions to stop transactions to one of their customers on a third party say alone. It does this by asking DNS registrars to disable domain names and prevent web sites from functioning without any court determination of guilt or innocence, again, on say alone.
Guilty until proven innocent
Clearly, our legal system and government system is broken. More than that, our legal system is taking a huge step backwards. Back to a time before the US adopted ‘Innocent until proven guilty’. Clearly, this mantra means little in the legal system today. With an adoption of SOPA or PIPA, we would always be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Those in the entertainment industry are severely undermining our legal infrastructure and, if you also happen to be a conspiracy theorist, systematically dismantling it with the help of of the US Congress no less.
Internet Piracy and the end of independent artists
The music and movie industries have yet to prove substantial losses regarding piracy, yet they continue on this legal tirade that attempts to systematically destroy our current legislative system with such overreaching laws as SOPA and PIPA. So overreaching, in fact, that these acts need no court interaction to remove alleged infringing sites from the internet without any court due process or a trial by peers. They offer no way to prove innocence easily or to refute any claims alleged. Simply put, the entertainment industries want to control businesses at a fundamental level outside of the courts. They simply want to call up GoDaddy and say, “You have a site that is infringing, take it down” and GoDaddy must comply with no questions asked. This is the entertainment industry’s ultimate goal:
- No legal system involvement
- Forced compliance
- No due process
- No refuting copyright claims allowed
- Instant removal
Clearly, we don’t want to be here. No single private industry should have that level of legislated control over any individual or business. Even law enforcement shouldn’t have that level of control over individuals or businesses without due process. The entertainment industry, let alone law enforcement should follow due process just like any other individual or business is required to do. If one industry is given that level of government sanctioned legal control, this country will fall and it will fall hard.
If SOPA or PIPA pass, we will move into a new dark age. An age without new books, new music or new creative works of any kind (other than those that the music and movie industries want us to see). The age of independent creative works will end. The age of creative new web sites will end. Eventually, even Hollywood and the music industry will end because of the negative backlash over the lack of substantial creative content… ultimately leaving no creative works of any kind. Independent creative people will stop creating because SOPA will have been so completely abused people won’t set up new sites for fear of a SOPA backlash. Existing businesses will stop doing business with anyone involved in creative works (and let’s hope that includes Hollywood).
Censorship
Part of the SOPA and the PIPA drafts suggest that ISPs adhere to a browsing blacklist. That is, ISPs would be required to prevent access to sites that are ‘known pirate’ sites. This is allegedly to target non-US sites, but it could just as easily target sites within the US. ISPs are and should be treated as a common carrier. That is, what is carried over their lines is not their responsibility either in or out. Requiring ISPs to become filters for the government and the entertainment industries is, again, overreaching. There is no need for this. I do understand what the MPAA and RIAA are both trying to do. But, instead of using censorship to block sites, they should simply go after the site directly. Do not censor everyone else’s view of the Internet because of an suspected problem. Again, this is simply like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No, just throw the bathwater out .. meaning, if a site becomes a problem, go after that specific site. Don’t require ISPs to block access to the site for every subscriber in the US. Censorship is not an acceptable problem resolution in any form here in the US. That representatives and senators are even considering this is amazingly chilling.
Chilling effects
Legislation like SOPA is chilling. It should not ever be passed. This legislation is the wrong legislation at the wrong time and for the wrong industry. No one industry should wield that level of unregulated power towards any other industry. The DMCA attempted that level of control but failed to work. SOPA is the next step to come out of the DMCA, but it is far too overreaching. Worse, this type of legislation needs to end before the United States as we know it ceases to exist. With legislation like SOPA, the US is leading itself to its own demise. We are, in effect, legislating the US out of existence and SOPA is just one step towards that end.
Consider who the major players are in Hollywood and in the music industry. Most of the players are not even US companies. Again, a conspiracy theorist could have a field day with all of this.
I’m sorry to say that entertainment is the least of this country’s worries, let alone the entertainment industry. They can fend for themselves. Boo Hoo, the movie and music industry might have lost 50 cents because someone allegedly downloaded a song or watched a movie online. Show us the numbers! The entertainment industry already has laws and the court system to back them up with both patent and copyright infringement claims. There is no need for any further legislation on this front. The US needs to focus its efforts on the economy and keeping this country afloat. The US is not responsible for propping up industries that can’t even properly manage themselves. Let’s let Hollywood and big music figure out how to manage themselves using the existing laws.
More then that, let’s make these industries first prove substantial losses to piracy before we give them any level of power, let alone this level. Just say ‘No’ to SOPA and PIPA. Write your congressional representatives and ask them to not support this legislation.
2011 in review
Happy New Year Everybody!
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
Madison Square Garden can seat 20,000 people for a concert. This blog was viewed about 66,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Madison Square Garden, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
iPad: disgusting and cool at the same time
While I initially thought the iPad wouldn’t be that useful, I have since found it does have a place in the world of computing. Definitely not as a replacement computer, but for quick notes, as an entertainment device, light gaming or web surfing, it works quite well. For other things, not so much. I am even typing this article on an iPad (that I was given as a gift). So, I’ve come to like the device for its limited uses.
On the other hand, the device can be completely disgusting in other people’s hands. I’ve seen some people’s iPads just overrun by dirty greasy disgusting fingerprints and muck. This is the part of this device that is completely disgusting. I just don’t understand how people can even see the screen, let alone use their iPad with that much grimy muck all over their screen. And, that’s the downside of the iPad. A really big downside if you ask me. Touching the screen, while seeming to be great idea, isn’t so great after it’s become an unslightly greasy disgusting mess.
So while I like the idea of the iPad, the screen’s tendency to become a filthy disgusting mess is just a horrid design principle. I’d rather just use a keyboard to type with a mouse I can periodically clean and/or throw away and replace. Most people’s mice are equally disgusting, now that grime has been transferred to the viewing surface which is all the more problematic. I’d rather have the mess on the peripheral and not the screen.
Installing the Apple Magic Mouse on Windows 7
Ok, so here’s a topic that you would think would be easy to do. Yet, thanks to Apple, it isn’t and, in fact, took me about 20 minutes to do something that should have taken me 2. Here’s one part of Apple that I hope changes with the new regime stepping in. As much as I admired Steve Jobs, his ideas about an Apple-centric universe were a bit over-the-top. It really makes no sense to create peripherals and tie them to only a tiny fraction of the overall computer market, especially when they’ve already written drivers for the other half of the market! Here’s hoping for some change.
Installing the Magic Mouse
This part is easy. Just turn on the mouse and add a new bluetooth device. Then, select the device and follow the wizard to complete the pairing. It’s not hard at all. The trouble is, it loads a 2006 generic Microsoft mouse driver. This driver doesn’t support any of the touch gestures. Anyway, once you’ve gotten it paired and working, you’ll quickly notice something is missing. Namely, vertical scrolling. Hmm, it makes this mouse less than ideal. So, how do you get scrolling working? Note, if you need specific instructions on setting up a bluetooth device, leave a comment below and I’ll post step-by-step instructions.
Boot Camp
To get the full (or at least as full as you’re going to get with Windows) gestures working (like vertical scrolling) with the Magic Mouse, you need to install Apple’s drivers from Boot Camp. Oh, don’t bother running over to Apple.com and looking for them, you’ll only find a bunch of updates that don’t contain the driver. Instead, you need to locate a copy of the Snow Leopard (or perhaps even a Lion) DVD. Once inserted into Windows, the Boot Camp partition should pop up. This is exactly what you need.
From here (assuming your DVD mounts on M:), go to M:\Boot Camp\Drivers\Apple\x64 or M:\Boot Camp\Drivers\Apple (for 32 bit). In this folder you will find a file called AppleWirelessMouse64.exe / AppleWirelessMouse.exe. Run this file. It will install drivers. When complete, the gestures will be enabled. However, you may have to go to Control Panel->Mouse and readjust the speed and acceleration as it gets reset after the installation.
Simple, easy, fast.. assuming you have a Snow Leopard install disk. Note, I’ve heard the drivers may not persist past a reboot. If you find this is the case, let me know and I will see if I can find a way to make that happen. :)
Update: If you’re using High Sierra and looking for Bootcamp drivers (2018 latest MacOS, visit this article to learn more about Bootcamp drivers).
Mouse won’t connect?
This is a problem I’ve found with the Magic Mouse even on a Mac. However, this has a simple fix (even if not obvious). Click the mouse several times to wake the mouse up to ask it to reconnect to Windows (or Mac) after turning the mouse on.
Drivers
Note, I’ve found the drivers on the net located here. If you find that this link no longer works, please let me know in the comments below and I’ll see if I can find another location.
Good Luck
Fallout 5: This time, it’s not a game.
As Fukushima Daichi continues to spew radiation non-stop, that radiation continues to blanket the world with many different types of radioactive elements including Strontium, Plutonium and Cesium. While the news media has been quite silent on this issue, Fukushima is far from silent. In fact, its melted reactor cores are just as potently spewing radiation as the day the tsunami hit and knocked out the power to containment causing the cores to begin melting.
As of today, three of the cores have now fully melted down and have melted through their protective casings and/or were damaged by the quake. In effect, they are now polluting the environment with their toxic radiation. The Japanese (and corresponding US) media outlets have been releasing reports with blinders on. That is, their tunnel vision reporting has attempted to keep the rest of the world from panicking, but at what price? So, both we and our children and our children’s children can end up slowly dying from radiation poisoning? Yes, this is a very real possibility. Why?
Radiation Plumes
Following the exposure of the cores at Fukushima, these cores are no longer safely contained. That is, these materials are now open to the air and environment. They are now continually spewing radiation into the atmosphere, water and soil. These plumes began blanketing the US (and the rest of the world) within days of the accident. At the same time, the Japanese decided to use seawater to attempt to cool down the cores. It didn’t work. But, what it did do is throw off additional plumes of radioactive sulphur (and other radioactive contaminants) into the air pushing even more radioactive material into the air currents. At the same time, that seawater had to go somewhere, so back into the soil (and ocean) it went. This action alone ensured an environmental disaster of epic proportions. Although, considering lack of containment, it likely would have been equally as bad without the seawater dispersal. So, while they thought they were attempting to cool the core with the seawater, they were simply creating an even more devastating ecological disaster.
Since then, both the ocean currents and the jetstream have moved plumes of radiation around the globe sending radiation over all parts of the globe (starting with the US and Canada) and contaminating sea animals and land animals alike (including people). This further means that our food and water supplies are now contaminated with these radioactive elements. Perhaps minutely, but radiation exposure is cumulative. Once it’s in the human body, it doesn’t come back out.
Not a game
Some have postulated that the Cesium fallout from this event is equivalent to 168 Hiroshima bombs (or more). This is a serious and devastating ecological event. Yet, where is government and the news media discussion? The fallout from this event is likely to kill millions around the globe from tainted food, water and soil. There is no where anyone can go on this Earth to get away from the radiation as it enters the food chain. Contamination is now everywhere (and will continue to build) as the air and water currents ensure the movement of the radiation throughout every part of the food chain (and globe). Even if the cores were to become contained today, the fallout from Fukushima is still enough to contaminate the world for years to come. Some of the isotopes have decay rates for thousands of years, some for millions. Worse, Japanese authorities seem to think it may take 1-3 years to fully contain the melted cores in reactors 1, 2 and 3. That means, the radiation will continue to spew for at least 1-3 years from these melted reactor cores.
What can be done?
Clearly, this shows exactly why deriving electricity from nuclear materials is not a good idea. Well, it is a good idea, but that’s where it should have ended.. as an idea. In practicality, humans cannot be trusted to manage these materials safely as Japan so clearly demonstrates. Lax behaviors patterns, unwillingness to touch, modify or upgrade aging facilities coupled with devastating earthquakes solidify that argument. Humans just cannot be trusted with these levels of radioactive materials. They are, in effect, ticking time bombs waiting for a mistake (Chernobyl) and/or disaster (Fukushima).
Dismantling aging nuclear infrastructures
It’s quite clear that aging nuclear reactors must be turned off and dismantled. Nuclear fuel rods must be safely removed and contained separately. The world can ill afford yet another nuclear disaster. We cannot even afford this one, but here we are. Simply viewing the Radiation Network, it’s quite clear how many radioactive sites may need to be dismantled.
Human nature is unavoidable
Unfortunately, “Out of sight, out of mind” is the optimal phrase here. People do not see what they don’t want to see. Yet, we have many extremely old reactor facilities in operation in the US (and around the world). These sites have been in continuous operation for many many years. Too many, in fact. Unfortunately, these sites were built at a time when construction techniques were less evolved. Now, we’re paying the price for that with these aging nuclear infrastructures. As I said, these old infrastructures are now ticking time bombs. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, it’s now a matter of when.
If companies like PG&E can’t even properly maintain underground gas pipelines, what makes anyone think these companies can properly maintain a nuclear power reactor? It’s clear, they can’t. Some of these aging reactors were built around the same time as the Fukushima reactors. In fact, they may be the same exact reactor at work from the same manufacturer. These Fukushima reactors may have, in fact, already begun decaying long before the quake or the tsunami. It just took those events to push the aging reactors over the edge. So, what will it take to push reactors in the US over the edge? Do we wait for companies like PG&E to conveniently siphon funds away to pay bonuses to their executive staff instead of putting money into maintaining these critical pieces of equipment?
The power of greed
Greed is a factor that invades every part of our lives. From the news media’s lack of reporting on this disaster to what happens with healthcare reforms to Wall Street monetary meltdowns. All of that we can live through. What humanity can’t live through is when greed causes toxic consequences. Did greed cause Japan’s nuclear meltdown? That’s debatable, but it probably played at least some part in this. If Japan had kept these reactors current by either building newer to replace the old or upgrading its current facilities, this might have been avoided. Yes, it takes money, but that’s the issue. We’re so preoccupied with giving the money to the executives that we don’t think twice of trying to avert disasters.
Fundamental thinking of money, money supply and how the world works must change. We cannot continue down the road we are on and expect humanity to survive. Then, people wonder why some civilizations rise and fall. Here’s a prime example of why. Greed drives society to do the wrong things and, in many cases, ignore doing the right things (when it’s too costly even when human life is at stake).
Fukushima: Lessons Learned?
This ongoing nuclear disaster is continuing, yet the US media is conveniently ignoring it. In fact, this is exactly what the US does best. Ignore things it doesn’t want to know about. Fukushima won’t stop spewing radiation merely by ignoring it. It will still continue to silently kill millions for years go come even if we take action today to contain it. In fact, those in Japan are to be the first casualties of this. The rest of the world won’t be far behind thanks to the jetstream and the Pacific and Atlantic currents coupled with our global food supply chain. In fact, you may have already exposed yourself to radiation from Fukushima and not even know it… in that glass of milk you drank or that piece of sushi you ate or that hamburger. Do we need to carry Geiger counters? Perhaps we need an app for that. We definitely need to prevent this from happening again if for no other reason than to save ourselves.
Why was the V TV series (2011) cancelled?
As Randocity had predicted in this earlier Boycott V Series article, V has officially been cancelled by ABC as of May 13, 2011 (Friday the 13th). Let this article serve as a cautionary tale for future producers. This was not a good day for the V series cast and crew as they had just lost their jobs. Oh well, such is life in show business. However, this cancellation goes to prove yet another experiment turns into a failure at the expense of what started as a good TV series. Why was the V series from 2011 cancelled? That’s quite a story story in and of itself. Let’s explore.
Why was the V TV series cancelled?
Since V’s (V stands for Visitor) second season launch in January, the producers and/or ABC had made the insane choice to not allow V back onto Hulu, iTunes, Amazon or any other streaming media service (including ABC’s very own streaming TV web site). That meant that there was no way to watch back episodes or catch up on missed V episodes. This also meant as people began missing episodes, they couldn’t catch up and said, “f-it” and moved on. This choice effectively forced people to watch the series on TV live the night it broadcast or buy a recorder to time shift it.
Lessons Learned?
When your TV series targets the exact age demographic of people who watch their shows via Hulu (or any other streaming site) and then when you decide to cut these exact viewers off from your show, it’s ultimately the kiss of death. Ultimately, this is the reason the series failed. V is, unfortunately, also a perfect example of what not to do with streaming media when promoting a TV series. Don’t shun streaming media, embrace it. Embrace it with open arms and nurture and foster its growth. As a producer you want, no, you need viewers. The more viewers the better. It doesn’t matter if you have to rip the video of each episode and personally seed the file on bitorrent yourself. Do it!
What you don’t want is, well, exactly what the producers did to V. Don’t bite the hand the feeds you. Worse, the show began to feel the effects of its lower and lower viewership (and ratings) and began making more and more desperate, drastic and insane story choices to try and recover that lost viewership. It didn’t work. These “creative” choices saw main characters killed off from the show, yet didn’t do anything to increase viewership. This only made the show worse and more pointless. But, these story choices were simply a side effect of the stupidity of not allowing streaming sites to stream (or store back catalog) this series. You can’t change a story to attempt make up for that poorly conceived ‘no streaming’ decision. To get viewers back, the producers would have had to rescind that decision and allow the show back onto Hulu, iTunes and Amazon. By April, it was already too late to rescind that decision and gain back that lost viewership. Ultimately, the series was doomed.
Cost Per Episode
One must recognize that this TV series was quite costly to produce. While I am unable to find an exact figure to place on the cost per episode, because this series relied almost entirely on CGI to handle the interior shots of the Visitor ships, this only added to the mounting pressure of producing this series. I’m positive that the cost per episode directly contributed to ABC’s decision to pull the plug, but only because of a drastic drop in viewership. The exceedingly questionable decision to remove the series entirely from streaming services left a huge gaping viewership hole that the producers couldn’t fill. In essence, it tied the producer’s hands and simultaneously left the series effectively without an audience. Meaning, the age group who would tune in to watch V wouldn’t be willing to do it solely on an over-the-air broadcast. That meant forcing viewers to sit down at a specific time in front of a TV or buy a device like a recorder to record the series. Both were unpleasant propositions, especially when you could formerly tune in at your leisure on your phone, laptop or tablet device. Thus, the viewership drastically tanked. With that drastic a viewership drop, ABC was left with no choice but to pull the plug on the series.
Back Catalogs & Advertisers
Any show should always allow a back catalog of episodes to be available on streaming sites for even just a few months to allow viewers to keep up with a show in progress. A back catalog of older episodes allows viewers to take their time catching up and feel good about the time when they watch. Sure, these views may not give the immediacy of the Neilsen ratings for over-the-air TV, but so what? That system is so antiquated, it needs to die. Instead, we need a new ratings system that takes into account real viewers from streaming sites and next day views. Skip the ‘night of’ viewership numbers and go with a model that resembles how people are actually consuming TV today. Internet enabled TVs are not going away and neither are mobile devices. Hello advertisers like Proctor and Gamble, get with it. Same day viewership of TV shows is over. That day has passed. The future of TV is through next day viewing or even month later views. That’s where the advertising revenues will be had.
So Long ‘V’
It’s unfortunate that the producers felt the need to make stupid choices like ‘no streaming’. It was a gamble that simply didn’t pay off. It turned the series into a shambles through poor story choices. Oh well, V has had its short-lived day. Tomorrow is another day and with it new TV shows to sink your time slots into. But, let’s just make sure they continue to do it on our, the viewer’s, terms.
To the producers, embrace change or perish. That’s the prime lesson to take away from the ‘V’ experiment. Yes, the V ‘no streaming’ experiment was truly a failure.
↩︎
Patent Trolls or why software patents should be abolished!
The patent system was originally designed to provide exclusive rights for invented ideas to inventors. But, there used to be a catch, the idea must lead to a real world tangible device. The patent system was also conceived long before computers existed. So, at the time when the patent system was conceived, it was designed as a way for inventors to retain exclusive control over their ideas for tangible devices without other people stealing or profiting from those ideas.
The patent system is enforced by the legal system. It is sanctioned by governments (specifically in the US, by the US Patent Office – USPTO and the legislative system) to protect said individuals’ patents from use by others who serve to profit from those previously ‘patented’ ideas. So, enforcing a patent involves suing an alleged infringer and then having a court of law rule whether the alleged infringer has, in fact, infringed. It is, then, the burden of proof of the patent holder to prove infringement. And, of course, it ties up the legal system to resolve this dispute.
Tangible vs Intangible Devices
The patent system was conceived at a time when the ultimate outcome of a patent idea was to produce a tangible physical good. That is, something that ultimately exists in the real world like a pen, a toaster, a drill, a telephone or a light bulb. The patented idea itself is not tangible, but the idea described within the patent should ultimately produce a tangible real world item if actually built. This is why ideas that lead to intangible things were never allowed to be patented and are only allowed to be copyrighted or trademarked.
Fast forward to when the first computers came into existence (30s-60s). Then later, the 70s when the US Patent Office began granting software patents en masse (although, the first software patent was apparently granted in 1966). Software, unfortunately, is not a tangible thing and, for the most part, is simply a set of ideas expressed through a ‘programming language’ with finite constructs. Modern programming languages, specifically, are designed to have limited constructs to produce a structured code. That is, an application that follows a specific set of pre-built rules to basically take data in and present data out (in specific unique ways). Ultimately, that’s what a program does, take data in, process it and spit data out in a new way.
Software Design Limits
Because modern programming languages have limited constructs from which to build an application and which are further constrained by such limits as application programming interface (API) frameworks, operating system function calls, hardware limitations and other such constraints, writing an application becomes an exercise in compromise. That is, you must compromise programming flexibility for the ease and speed of using someone else’s API framework. Of course, you can write anything you want from scratch if you really want, but most people choose to use pre-existing frameworks to speed the development process. Using external frameworks also reduce time to completion of a project. At the same time, including third party API systems is not without its share of coding and legal issues. Programmatically speaking, using a third party API opens up your code to security problems and puts implicit trust into that API that it’s ‘doing the right thing’. Clearly, the functionality derived from the external framework may outweigh the security dangers present within the framework. From a legal perspective, you also don’t know what legal traps your application may fall into as a result of using someone else’s API framework. If they used code within the framework that is legally questionable, that will also bring your application into question because you used that framework inside your app (unless, of course, it’s using a SOAP/REST internet framework).
With all that said, embedding frameworks in your app severely constricts your ability to control what your program is doing. Worse, though, if you are using a high level programming language like C, C++, Objective C, C# or any other high level language, you are limited by that programming language’s built-in construct. So, even if you choose to code everything from scratch, it’s very likely you could write code substantially similar to something that someone else has already written. Because high level languages have limited constructs, there are only so many ways to build an application that, for example, extracts data from a database. So, you have to follow the same conventions as everyone else to accomplish this same task.
Software Patents are bad
Because of these limited high level language constructs, there is a high probability that someone writing an application will write code that has already been written hundreds of times before. And note, that’s not an accident. That happens because do()while, for() and while() loops as well as if conditionals area always used in the same way. Worse, you can’t deviate from these language constructs because they are always the same in pretty much any language. If these constructs didn’t exist, you couldn’t easily make decisions within your code (ie, if X is greater than 3, do this, else do that).
Why are software patents bad? Simply, because languages are written with such limited programming concepts, the probability to reinvent something that has already been invented is far too high. Unlike devising a real world idea where the probability someone could come up with that same exact idea is likely near zero, writing software using language constructs the probability is far higher than 70% that someone could design the same (or substantially similar) code, idea or construct. And. that high probability is strictly because of the limits and constructs imposed by the high level language.
Yet, the USPTO has decided to allow and grant software patents knowing the probabilities of creating substantially similar ideas within the software world is that high. Yes, probabilities should play a part in whether or not to grant patents.
Probabilities
Probability in idea creation is (and should always be considered) how likely someone is to create something substantially similar to someone else. Probability should always be relevant in granting patents. Patents need to be unique and individual. That is, a patent should be granted based on something that multiple people could not devise, guess, build or otherwise conceive accidentally. Because real world tangible items are constrained only by the elements here on Earth, this effectively makes inventions using Earth elements pretty much infinite (at least for all intents and purposes). Because software code uses a much smaller number of constructs that limit and constrain programming efforts, that smaller set increases the chances and the probabilities that someone can create something similar. In fact, it increases probabilities by orders of magnitudes. I’m sure an expert on statistics and probabilities could even come up with real world probability numbers between element based inventions and software code based inventions. Suffice it to say, even without this analysis, it’s quite clear that it’s far too easy for someone to devise something substantially similar in software without even really trying.
Software patents are bad, revisited
Basically, it’s far too easy for someone to devise something someone else has already conceived using software. On top of this, the USPTO has seen fit to grant software patents that are way too obvious anyway. That is, they’ve granted patents to software ideas that are similarly as common place as cotton, strawberries, a nail and yarn. Worse, because of these completely obvious patents, patent trolls (people who do nothing but patent without the intent of producing anything) game the system and produce completely obvious patents. This action has created a land mine situation for the software industry. This is especially bad because it’s virtually impossible to search for existing patents before writing software.
So, as a software developer, you never know when you might step on one of these land mines and get a ‘cease and desist’ notification from a patent troll. That is, someone who has patented some tiny little thing that’s completely obvious, yet your application takes advantage of that thing somewhere because you just happened upon one of the easy to build constructs in a language. Yet, patents should only be granted based on an idea that someone cannot easily create by sheer accident. Yet, here we are.
Ideas now patented
Worse, software is not and has never been tangible. That is, software doesn’t and cannot exist in the real world. Yes, software exists on real world devices, but that software itself is just a series of bits in a storage device. It is not real and will never be real or ever see the light of day. That is, software is just an idea. An idea with a structured format. It is not real and will never have a real tangible physical shape, like a toaster. We will never be able to have tactile interaction with software. Hardware, yes, is tactile. Software, no. The software’s running code itself cannot stimulate any of our five senses: not sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.. Someone might argue, well software does produce visual and audible interaction. Yes, the output of the software produces these interactions. That is, the software processes the input data and produces output data. The input and output data has sight and sound interaction. You still aren’t seeing or hearing the software code doing the processing. That’s under the hood and cannot be experienced by our five senses. For this reason, software is strictly an idea, a construct. It is not a tangible good.
Patents are a form of personal law
That is, the owner of the patent now has a legal ‘law’ that they need to personally enforce. That is, that patent number gives them the right to take anyone to court to enforce their ‘law’ err.. patent. No entity in government should be allowed to grant personal law. Especially not for intangible things. I can understand granting patents on tangible items (a specialty hair clip, a curling iron, a new type of pen, etc). That makes sense and it’s easy to see infringement as you can see and touch the fake. It takes effort, time and money to produce such a tangible item. Software patents require nothing. Just an application to the USPTO, a payment and then wait for it to be granted. After the patent has been granted, take people to court, win and wait for royalties. This is wrong.
All software patents should be immediately abolished and invalidated
Why?
- Software patents only serve corporations in money making ventures. Yet, software patents really serve to bog down the legal system with unnecessary actions.
- Software patents stifle innovation due to ‘land mines’. Many would-be developers steer clear of writing any code for fear of the legal traps.
- Software patents are granted based on probabilities far too high that someone will produce something similar based on limited high level language constructs
- Because software language constructs are, by comparison, much smaller in number when compared to Earth elements (when inventing real world ideas), probabilities say it’s too easy to recreate something substantially similar to someone else in software.
- Software is intangible and cannot expose itself as anything tangible (which goes against the original idea of patents in the first place)
- Software patents will reach critical mass. Eventually, the only people left writing code will be large corporations who can afford to defend against legal traps.
- Software patents are now being granted without regards to obviousness.
As a result, all software patents, past and present, should be immediately invalidated. If we continue this path of software patents, a critical mass will eventually exist such that writing software will become such a legal landmine that developers will simply stop developing. I believe we’ve already seen the beginnings of this. Eventually, the only people left who can afford to develop software will be large corporations with deep pockets. Effectively, software patents will stifle innovation to the point that small developers will no longer be able to legally defend against the Patent Trolls and large corporations seeking to make money off ‘licensing’. The patent system needs to go back to a time when the only patents granted were patents describing tangible physical goods. Patents that do not describe tangible physical goods should be considered ideas and dumped under copyright law only.
iPad: One year later…
The iPad was introduced very close to this time last year. Now the iPad 2 is out, let’s see how it’s well it’s going for Apple and for this platform as a whole.
Tablet Format
The tablet format seems like it should be a well-adopted platform. But, does the iPad (or any tablet) really have many use cases? Yes, but not where you think. I’m not sure Apple even knew the potential use cases for a tablet format before releasing it. Apple just saw that they needed a netbook competitor, so they decided to go with the iPad. I am speculating that Apple released it with as wide an array of software and development tools to see exactly where it could go. After all, they likely had no idea if it would even take off.
Yes, the iPad has had a widely and wildly accepted adoption rate. Although, market saturation is probably close at hand with the numbers of iPads sold combined with the Android tablet entries (Samsung’s Galaxy S, Toshiba’s tablet and other tablets out or about to be released). That is, those people who want a tablet now can have one. But, the main question is, what are most people using a tablet for?
My Usage
I received an iPad as a gift (the original iPad, not the iPad 2). I find myself using it at work to take notes first and foremost. I can also use it as a systems admin tool in a pinch. However, instead of carrying paper and pencil into a meeting, I take notes in the notepad app. This is actually a very good app for taking quick notes. Tap typing is nearly silent, so no clicky key noises or distracting pencils. The good thing, though, is that these notes will sync with Gmail and you can read all your notes in Gmail. You can’t modify the notes on Gmail, but at least you have them there. You can modify them on the iPad, though. You can also sync your notes to other places as well.
My second use case is watching movies. So, I have put nearly my entire collection of movies on the iPad. Of course, they don’t all fit in 32GB, so I have to pick and choose which ones get loaded. The one thing the iPad needs, for this purpose, is more local storage. I’d like to have a 128GB or 256GB storage system for the iPad. With that amount of space, I could probably carry around my entire movie collection. In fact, I’d forgo the thinness of the iPad 2 by adding thickness to support a solid state 256GB drive.
The rest of my use cases involve reading email and searching and, sometimes, listening to music… although, I have an iPod touch for that. I might listen to music more if it had a 256GB solid state drive.
Cloud Computing and Google
This article would be remiss by not discussing competition to the iPad. There is one thing about Google’s Android platform that should be said. Android is completely integrated with Google’s platform. Apple’s iPad isn’t. Google has a huge array of already functional and soon-to-be-released cloud apps that Android can take advantage of. Apple, on the other hand, is extremely weak on cloud apps. The only cloud app they have is the iTunes store. That, in fact, is really a store and not a cloud app. So, excluding iTunes, there really isn’t any cloud platforms for Apple’s devices. That’s not to say that the iPad is excluded from Google, it’s just not nearly as integrated as an Android tablet.
Eventually, Android may exceed the capabilities of Apple’s IOS platform. In some ways, it already has (at least in cloud computing offerings). However, Android is still quite a bit more buggy when compared to IOS. IOS’s interface is much more streamlined, slick and consistent. The touch typing system is far easier to use on an iPad than on Android. Finally, the graphics performance on Android is incredibly bad. With Android, the scrolling and movement is choppy using an extremely slow frame rate. Apple’s interface is much more fluid and smooth and uses a high framerate. The transitions between various apps is clean and smooth in IOS, but not in Android. This graphics performance issue Google must address in Android. A choppy slow interface is not pretty and makes the platform seem cheap and underpowered. Worse, the platform is inconsistent from manufacturer to manufacturer (icons are different between manufacturers). Google has to addresses these performance and consistency issues to bring Android to the level where it must be.
Apple’s Blinders
That said, the iPad (or more specifically Apple) needs to strengthen its cloud offerings. If that means partnering with Google, then so be it. Apple needs something like Google Docs and Google Voice. It also needs cloud storage. It needs to create these offerings that are Apple branded that integrate with the iPad natively, not as third party add-ons through the app store. This is what Apple needs to work on. Apple is so focused on its hardware and making the next device that it’s forgetting that it needs to support its current devices with more and better cloud offerings. This is what may lead Apple out of the tablet race. This may also be what makes Google the leader in this space.
So, what things do you use your iPad for?
Let’s Find Out
| Poll 1 | Poll 2 |
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment