Frothy Concepts Archives - Page 11 of 15

Defending yourself against patents – Patent busting at EFF

5 October, 2009 by sky Leave a Comment

The Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF.ORG] has a “patent busting” activity that watches for patents that “should never have been granted” (my language) and works to invalidate them, or at least invalidate as many of their claims as possible.^[1] You’d be amazed at the kinds of things that have been patented that were just plain obvious, or had clearly been invented years before by someone else. I’m particularly sensitive to this because of my long history in computer-based learning and education. As an example, EFF is focusing on busting a patent on online test-taking. This one hinges on a method for charging for the tests and splitting the revenue, but nevertheless it seems absurd that someone could obtain a patent on splitting revenues from test-taking, doesn’t it?

[1] A patent hinges on any number of “claims” which are generally separate and somewhat independent of each other, and these are usually structured in such a way that they’re like ”gotchas” — if the patent owner can’t get you on one of them he may get you on another of them. There is a tension between how much is claimed by the inventor and what claims the patent office allows — and this back-and-forth starts at the time a patent application is filed, continuing until the patent is either issued, claims are removed, or the application is denied. On a granted patent, its strength is generally related to how many claims there are and how broadly they can be applied to a competing invention. Attacking a patent involves showing that individual claims should be invalidated, until you have either stricken the entire patent or reduced it to a few claims that are so weak it can no longer be effectively used.

Rock on, Net Neutrality

22 September, 2009 by sky Leave a Comment

Please stay aware of this issue – network neutrality means that you, the Internet user, have access to all online content with the same priority. It means that the carriers — both those who provide backbone services and those who deliver content to your doorstep — must not block certain types, or certain origins, of content that is lawfully provided to you.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski spoke about this [Wall Street Journal report] at the Brookings Institution earlier this week. He proposes that all carriers, including wireless carriers who handle data traffic, should have to carry traffic without regard to what its content is or who is providing that content. The new provision in his proposal is that wireless carriers would have to carry voice-over-IP traffic as well as other kinds of data, which brings very cheap voice communications to mobile devices – much cheaper than the rates now charged for mobile voice calls.

Defending yourself against patents

10 September, 2009 by sky Leave a Comment

You heard it right – I’m talking about defending yourself against <spooky music> … patents! This has become the game of the day.

The Allied Security Trust acquires patents that might at a future date be used to attack companies using Linux. Open Invention Network announced recently that it had bought 22 patents that AST had acquired Microsoft Corporation. Once OIN acquires a patent, they release it for use by others.

Some years ago I realized that since the US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) was allowing patents on business processes and software, it was only a matter of time until everything that I do every day when writing programs, would be patented and I would no longer be able to write and sell programs without infringing someone else’s intellectual property. (It would probably be OK to write a program if I kept it secret, but as soon as I try to sell it – kaboom! – the long arm of the law would come down on me.)

In fact, I was an expert witness a few years ago, in a case where a company had patented one of the most basic and key processes related to something that we do every day. Basically if you 1) look at a process and measure it; 2) decide on the basis of measurement what you want to fix or change; and 3) then fix only the things that were wrong… they you would be violating this patent. Holy moly! This is so fundamental you would think it couldn’t be patented. But it was.

And believe it or not, the two companies involved in the dispute settled the case before it went to trial. For tens of millions of dollars. In my opinion, the patent should never have been issued because the fundamental work had been done by someone else in 1973 (not by the person who held the patent). But it had been patented.

The trouble is that even if the patent should never have been granted, it is often more costly to defend yourself, or to get the patent overturned, than it is to settle and pay a ”ransom” to the people who have the patent.

Can you image what the Linux world of open source software would be like if an unscrupulous company — and particularly one which doesn’t actually have any business other than going after people who violate their copyrights — were to patent the basic processes of Linux and then sue everyone to stop them from utilizing the processes?

The business of AST and OIN is to protect us from these nightmares.

Howard Rheingold- 21st Century Literacies

4 August, 2009 by sky Leave a Comment

Howard Rheingold’s message is that we need to attend to 21st-Century literacies. meaning that we need to know (or learn) how to sort out the good from the bad.

Howard suggests the critical skills are: attention; participation; collaboration; network-savvy and critical consumption (what Howard often calls crap detection).

JD Lasica interviewed Howard in Cambridge [see JD’s blog post] when we were on Traveling Geeks.

Reaching Advocates and Influencers

23 July, 2009 by sky Leave a Comment

Rather than blasting out advertising indiscriminately to everyone, firms are finding they can target individuals who like their brand and can influence others to see the brand more positively. There are more and more ways to find out who your brand’s advocates and influencers are. That’s because software is now tying the data together so we can actively decide how to reach and, more importantly interact with, our passionate customers. Social media allow us to openly and transparently interact with and have conversations with our customers.

Susan Bratton, JD Lasica, Renee Blodgett and Robert Scoble discuss these aspects of marketing and customer relations in this roundtable in Cambridge as a part of Traveling Geeks 2009.