The U.S. Patent system makes me laugh ...

It seems that Microsoft is seeking a patent for data migration in the cloud, something which we provided in Zimki back in 2007 and had been publicly talked about by various people for many years before that (though in those days it was called utility computing).

Well, at least the patent adds more weight to the idea that when Azure launches, it will be with a variety of ISP's, a buy your own Azure container and I'd hazard a guess at the illusion of an open marketplace based upon open standards.

The battle for Helms Deep approaches.

As for the U.S patent system, well I would normally argue that patents should be "limited in duration to a timeframe in which society could be reasonably expected to independently create such an innovation" - except of course I'm from the U.K. where we already have more robust view on patenting software.

So please, by all means keep on hampering your technology sector and turn it into a legal quagmire. I'm obviously hoping that the U.K. won't follow suit.

Time to let go of the brake ...

I've just been reading on Patently-0 about the following PTO (Patent and Trademarks Office) position on software patents which threatens to invalidate many and perhaps most software patents.

The basis of the argument is that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they “result in a physical transformation of an article” or are “tied to a particular machine”. The counter argument is that these processes are tied to a computer which is a particular machine. Unfortunately for those with this argument, it seems the PTO does not consider a general purpose computer as a particular machine.

Now for patent trolls this could be a nightmare. For innovation in a society this could create a positive boom. Patents have always been an exchange between information and the right of monopoly, with the overall goal of boosting the rate of innovation in a society. The major issue with patents has been when the length of term of the monopoly has exceeded the likely time of independent discovery in society. In such circumstances patents act as a brake on the rate of innovation and not an accelerator to it.

Ideally, the length of term of a patent should be set to just slightly more than the likely time of independent discovery. This would result in a more equitable but complex system. The current system of one size fits all creates some gross distortions.

The most obvious example of this is in the software industry, where the rate of innovation and independent discovery vastly exceeds the length of term of patents. Ditching the patent system in software is more likely than not to boost the rate of innovation and it is more in keeping with the original goals of the patent system.

It's a sad, sad day for innovation....

I missed this announcement, but it seems that the High Court said "that the Patent Office was incorrectly applying the law in automatically rejecting claims for computer programs".

According to IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) magazine, the situation in the UK is still confusing but there is hope of a single European patent jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the European Patent Office has tended to be more lenient to software patents. Though this may favour patent lawyers, it would be a significant setback for society and innovation.

For those of you who have not read Noble Prize winning Eric Maskin's paper on Sequential Innovation and Patents, it conservatively summarises with the statement that:-

"In a dynamic world firms have plenty of incentive to innovate without patents and patents may constrict complementary innovation”

Unfortunately, some people see patents as purely a financial opportunity and have somewhat forgotten that the original purpose of patents was to be fair exchange designed to promote and disseminate innovation in society in return for a short lived monopoly.

If we were Golgafrinchams, then we'd probably have started building that B Ark by now.

A truly wonderful quote ...

I came across this quote while reading Ira Flatow's wonderful book - "They all laughed"

The Law of Firsts (as in who discovered it first) was hypothesised by Eliot Sivowitch of the National Museum of American History.

“Whenever you prove who was first, the harder you look you will find someone else who was more first. And if you persist in your efforts you find that the person whom you thought was first was third.”

Of course, applying the law means that at least two other people said it before Eliot.

Patently marvellous ...

For a long time I've argued that patents make no sense from a societal viewpoint when the time of independent discovery is less than the length of the patent and where alternative means of disseminating information for benefit exists (such as Open Source, Scientific Journals etc) - for more see here and here.

Patents can act as a spur for innovation but also as a choke-hold. As commoditisation of communication, open source and other factors have accelerated the rate and diffusion of innovation then the length of term is becoming even more problematic.

So today, whilst casually researching another issue, I came across this beautiful paper from Rufus Pollock on optimal copyright length.

The lawyers are taking over the asylum.

A patent application covering the business process method of a -

"concept of a marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits"

- was rejected by the PTO on the grounds that a claim must either have a “useful, concrete, and tangible result” or “transform” something into a new physical state. This is good, as the application does neither of these things.

Unfortunately the decision is being appealed on the grounds that the test is too strict. The full story can be followed on Patently-O.

The application should really have been rejected on the grounds that there is no innovation involved whatsoever. The applicants and their lawyers should really have been carted off to an asylum for the bleeding obvious for their own good and ours. Provision of service in return for a percentage of worth or rewards? We've been doing this for hundreds if not thousands of years - booty of war, no win no fee and many others.

Given the enormous amounts of waste and the negative impact on innovation that the current patent system has, it is about time that business process method patents were discarded for the pointless sham that they are.

Another world's first ...

A long, long time ago I was in a pub in Cambridge talking to an ex-Mathmo called Rich Walker. We talked about radar systems and robotics, and he mentioned an organisation called Shadow and a concept known as air muscles.

I've kept an interest in what they were doing, so it was with some amazement I read this PhysOrg article on the "world's first prototype of an artificial hand with "air muscles"

Well either it is based upon Shadow's work, or they are using Shadow's "air muscles" or they don't know that Shadow has been doing "air muscles" for over a decade, and building all sorts of wonderful creations with it.

All I can suggest is if the Japanese firm have "independently" created this, that they apply for a patent with the USPTO, EPO etc ...

Over the last two decades there has been an explosion in both patent applications and claims per filing. There would seem to be some evidence to suggest that this growth is correlated to the growth rate of new product introductions as opposed to actual innovation.

I think Audi's claim :-

"To date, NASA has filed 6,509 patents. In developing the A6, Audi filed 9,621."

... says it all.

One click shopping ...

I've read with interest Amazon's patent application for

"A distributed, web-services based storage system. A system may include a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, a given client request for access to a given data object, the request including a key value corresponding to the object"

as pointed to on Slashdot.

Why with interest? Well Zimki was originally launched last year under the name of libapi, and by the 7th March 2006 (the day before Amazon applied for its patent) we already had 24 registered users.

The really interesting thing is that the service provides (and provided) distributed file storage via web services. Sounds a bit familiar?

We're looking into it...

The really cool thing, is that we have another service that was launched long before libapi and also provided "distributed file storage via web services".

Oh, and before you ask why didn't we apply for patents on "a distributed, web-services based storage system" or "a utility based computing environment" or "online development of web applications" - well it was blindingly obvious prior to 2005, let alone in 2006.

It's happening all over again ... the sooner they neuter such patents, the better.

As for Amazon, well I've long maintained the biggest obstacle to adoption of utility computer services - for example S3 & EC2 - will be vendor lock-in. Once you have a marketplace of equivalent services, you can overcome this. Hence why we focused on open sourcing Zimki, and my subsequent disappointment at the delay to this.

Amazon could of course be planning something like this and wanted the patents as a defensive measure ... I'd hope so, otherwise this just seems like a fairly odd move.

Federation ...

I've waxed lyrically for a very long time about the distinction between CODB (cost of doing business) vs CA (competitive advantage) in IT, commoditisation of IT and the need for a "national" grid of utility computing resources.

We covered many of these subject in detail, along with 3D printing & worth based development back in Euro 2004.

So it is interesting to see how things have developed since that time and a lot of the new companies arriving on the scene.

There are so many it is difficult to keep track, but I noticed recently this announcement of a SaaSGrid. The concepts seem similar to our Borg system (which we've been using internally since about 2003) and Zimki (which previously was called libapi and internally is known as fish - more on the naming of Zimki.).

A platform you can build another application on, you charge for it with a utility pricing model and you sell it forward with a utility pricing model. Excellent.

Though they don't seem to have launched yet, it is interesting. However, there is one disappointment for me - "do it all without technological lock-in" and "host it with patent pending scaling and reliability technology ...".

The key to generating a true federated grid and avoiding any lock-in, is and has always been an open and free standard (i.e. running code, an open source reference model for implementation which defines the standard). I'm talking at OSCON this year and most of my talk will be on this matter.

The people behind SaaSGrid seem to be Matt and Sinclair from SaaSBlogs. They seem smart enough cookies, and I wish them best of success.

I hope they consider the whole open standards issue of a federated grid, because this is where the real battle will be fought and is it really to everyones interest to create multiple competing standards?

Give me more ...

OSBC was an outstanding conference with some intelligent and thoughtful speakers such as Eben Moglen, breaking down the old tale that software patents makes sense.

I've argued for a long time that patents make no sense from a societal viewpoint when the time of independent discovery is less than the length of the patent and where alternative means of disseminating information for benefit exists (such as Open Source, Scientific Journals etc).

Patents can act as a spur for innovation but also as a choke-hold. Patents do make sense in some fields and have been used for specific societal purposes in the past.

I'm all in favour of a patent system, designed and used for the benefit of society - the common good. I'm not in favour of a mechanism which hinders innovation in society for the commercial benefit of the few. Now, there is the argument that invention and knowledge are totally separate things. Poppycock - that's semantics at its worst.

Invention is fundamentally the process which drives greater knowledge and it depends upon prior knowledge, experimentation and reasoning. Every time I try and solve a new mathematical problem, I'm experimenting with ways of solving it whether that's done in my head or on paper. If I discover a new way of solving the problem, I've invented a new method - my knowledge has expanded.

Invention is also not a commercial activity, it's a human one. There are many reasons why I might invent something new, plain old curiosity being one of them. Now I don't have to give my knowledge to others - it's my choice.

Patents are simply a societal means of encouraging the spread of such new found knowledge where it is of overall benefit to society that this happens. There is a cost associated with this, the provision of a monopoly, hence the principle of the greater common good.

We, as in society, give you this monopoly in return for the secrets of your invention because it benefits society as a whole to do so.

If it is likely that such new knowledge will be found and disseminate through society by other mechanisms during the lifetime of the patent then we shouldn't hand them out or we should limit the lifetime. We do need patents, but they need to focus on the common good for society and I feel we need to be a lot more demanding on our side of the bargain.

My view on more demanding patent discussions, wow stylee ...

[Thunder]: Can I have a patent for [idea] pls?
[Society]:Well only if it is likely that such knowledge wouldn't disseminate through society in the next twenty years.
[Thunder]: eh? WTF? You role playing or what?
[Society]: No you can't have a patent, it's an idea ... you don't actually think no-one else has either thought of or is going to think of this idea?
[Thunder]: Yeah
[Society]: On yer bike.
[Thunder]: UR old.
[Society]: lol

[Smerlin]: Can I have a patent for [scientific discovery] pls?
[Society]: Well only if it is likely that such knowledge wouldn't disseminate through society in the next twenty years.
[Smerlin]: No, it wouldn't.
[Society]: Hmmm, if we say no, you'll just publish it in a scientific journal anyway because of the enormous benefit and fame it brings you
[Smerlin]: No I won't.
[Society]: Yes you will. On yer bike.
[Smerlin]: twink
[Society]: lol

[Gollum]: Can I have a patent for [new software] pls?
[Society]: Well only if it is likely that such knowledge wouldn't disseminate through society in the next twenty years.
[Gollum]: eh? What's disseminate?
[Society]:Hmmm, if we say no, then if its really useful the open source community would probably build an equivalent.
[Gollum]: No they won't. They won't be able to work it out.
[Society]: Yes they will. In which case you'll just open source it anyway and hope to get the community involved.
[Gollum]: No I won't.
[Society]: Yes you will. It's in your interests.
[Gollum]: I'll stop inventing if you do that.
[Society]: Doubt it. Doesn't really matter if you do, there are a smart bunch of people coding out there.
[Gollum]: No, No, No. You need me ... give me the patent.
[Society]: Nope
[Gollum]: ?@!$%

[Valiant]: Can I have a patent for [device which teleports people between countries] pls?
[Society]: UR kidding right?
[Valiant]: Nope. U wan it? I'm using one now.
[Society]: Can u tell us how it works?
[Valiant]: u give me patent?
[Society]: OK
[Valiant]: thx
[Society]: This is really cool, we'd never have thought of that ... not in twenty years.
[Valiant]: yeah.
[Society]: thx
[Valiant]: np
[Society]: Wow ... that's amazing.
[Valiant]: lol. u want to go SM? Cath?
[Society]: sure

[Pixely]: Can I patent for [inkjet printing an interconnect between two electronic devices] pls?
[Society]: No
[Pixely]: Why?
[Society]: Because that's [soldering] via [fabrication]
[Pixely]: So?
[Society]: Well they aren't exactly new concepts.
[Society]: If we give you this patent that could seriously hinder future innovation and industry.
[Pixely]: Yeah but if you don't I won't tell you how I did it?
[Society]: I don't think it's worth giving you a monopoly for twenty years.
[Society]: It's a bit obvious
[Pixely]: Not according to my lawyer.
[Society]: Well we're not your lawyer.
[Pixely]: I've spent $$ making this!
[Society]: Well sell a product then.
[Pixely]: But some big company will just copy it.
[Society]: hmmm, ok we will give you a patent for 5 yrs.
[Pixely]: I want 20.
[Society]: 5
[Pixely]: 10?
[Society]: 5!

[Tweedle]: Can I patent [Selling Dog Food via the Internet] pls?
[Society]: No
[Tweedle]: Why?
[Society]: This is a joke right?
[Tweedle] No? It's a new business process!
[Society]: Bye

I'm a fire starter, twisted fire starter ....

Open source is ubiquitous, most of the web runs on it, many electronics devices depend upon it and a large amount of commerce is built on it.

Back in 2004, the OSRM undertook an evaluation of potential patent infringement in open source software and stated :-

"In conclusion, the evaluation found that no court-validated software patent is infringed by the Linux kernel"

Hang-on, but what about all the fuss Microsoft has created with the open source community and potential patent infringement? Are these new patents? What patents are they?

Well Microsoft isn't saying .

Sounds familiar? Haven't we been here before?

Why aren't they saying? According to Edward Olivier, it is:-

"because that could allow open source developers to challenge the patent or re-program the softwares to circumvent the violations."

Thanks to Groklaw for pointing out the OSRM study and remembering Andrew Orlowski's comment that :-

"the true value of Microsoft's patent arsenal lies in the threat of their use, not their actual use."

Hmmmm .... makes sense to me.

I'll also note Brad Smith, Microsoft's Senior Vice President and General Counsel comment that :-

"The only real solution that [the free software] folks have to offer is that they first burn down the bridge, and then they burn down the patent system,"

and ask the question ...

What were patents for?

Well, let's go back to the purpose of patents, and since this is happening in the US, let's take a look at the copyright clause of the US constitution :-

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The key is "to promote". In a world where inventions were kept secret, patents seemed a fair exchange on a societal basis.

You tell us, as in the society, your “big secret” - then we create a bank of all these “ideas” or “big secrets” and in return we will give you a monopoly for a period of time, say X years.

Why do this? Well the argument goes that such a “Bank of Ideas” helps promote innovation in a society. It's a fair exchange as no other alternative exists.

All sounds fairly reasonable, doesn't it?

Houston, we have a problem ...

Assuming that the knowledge is useful in the first place, if X years is greater than the time of independent discovery in society then X acts as a choke hold on innovation. It doesn't promote but instead stifles.

In any case an alternative DOES now exist, it's called open source.

Now with this, there is no choke hold. The benefit to a company using open source is support in the development and adoption of a product rather than monopoly. Since you don’t get to control the market, you have to compete on service.

Wait, a moment, that's a more perfect market! By turning a novel and new idea into an open and free standard, you also drive commoditisation, which allows for the development of more new and novel concepts.

That means ...

Open source should drive innovation and create more perfect markets!

Surely we should be able to see this effect? Working from the ideas of creative destruction as proposed by Joseph Schumpeter ...

"innovative entry by entrepreneurs was the force that sustained long-term economic growth, even as it destroyed the value of established companies that enjoyed some degree of monopoly power."

... you would expect to see some effect of open source, causing a rapid commoditisation of the new and novel and hence allowing for a more rapid rate of innovation. You expect to see some form of disruption with the strongest effect in those industries most reliant on IT.

Step in Andrew Mcafee ...

Andrew and Erik Brynjolfsson undertook a study into information technology's impact on competition and commented that :-

"What we have observed in industry after industry is the emergence of widespread process innovation and replication that is analogous to the product innovation and replication that takes place in high tech"

and also

"Turbulence also increased substantially in the high-IT industries after the mid-1990s, and the same patterns weren't observed in the industries that were less reliant on information technology."

Mid-1990s? You mean like the same time open source was rapidly growing in both adoption and as a movement .. Linux, Apache etc.

Are we seeing the effect of open source?

Accelerating the commoditisation of new and novel concepts from CA to CODB, driving innovation and creating more perfect markets? Are we seeing an acceleration of innovation? Are we seeing the wider effects of Open Source?

Hmmm .... we really need to adopt this meme to more than just software, hardware & processes.

Maybe the patent system has run its course? Maybe it's time for something new? Unless of course you think that software companies and society as a whole will stop innovating without it?

"Burn down the patent system"?

An interesting but obvious idea. But why not?

Now where did I put those matches ....

Slightly silly ...

The Good

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirms obviousness and basically puts a dent into the idea of Internet-related patents that have a close non-Internet corollary i.e. looks like you can't say this common service plus internet is non-obvious.

The Bad

Microsoft says that open source projects infringe 235 of its patents. Why do I feel we have been here before? The terms SCO and FUD keep coming to mind.

and the ...

Tarquin-Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop

-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel

DRM company threatens to sue Apple and Microsoft for NOT using its products.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

Over the last year, I've seen some interesting news about software patents and copyrights.

In the UK we had the response to the epetition on software patents, which stated

"The Government remains committed to its policy that no patents should exist for inventions which make advances lying solely in the field of software."

In the US, just recently the supreme court has limited a decade old test centered around the requirement that an invention be "non-obvious". You can get more details at GrokLaw.

Two wonderful quotes included :-

"Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility"

Wow, that's an amazing statement. I particular like the the part about patents which combine previously known elements, which could extend to all sorts of places.

But wait, there was more :-

"One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claim"

So, if it is a known or existing problem, which can be solved without real innovation, then bye bye.

But wait, hold on, PatentlyO says there is more. In the Microsoft vs AT&T case, the Supreme court said "Patent Act does not extend to cover foreign duplication of software".

Excellent, so how are we doing in Europe? Well, when it comes to copyright we seem to be heading towards a dismal future thanks to the IPRED2.

This makes the "aiding, abetting, or inciting" of copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" a crime. Doesn't seem such a bad an idea, but what by the way is a "commercial scale"?

Well that's the problem, it's very fuzzy and it seems to include "open source coders, media-sharing sites like YouTube, and ISPs that refuse to block P2P services."

Er.... hang on, if the US are finally trying not to be at a competitive disadvantage why are we in Europe trying to bash up the open source movement?

Every time something smart happens, there is always that opposing reaction to be found.

Not Obvious?

Just seen this patent for a modular operating system filed in June'05 by Microsoft.

Obviously it's US centric - but I have to ask, having read it and thinking back to where we were in 2005, where is the non obvious bit?

Looks to me like a combination of pre-existing ideas and I can't find a single thing which is new.

Help please, can someone point it out!

An idea is not just for Christmas .. it's for 20 years

I've finally sat down and started to read the Gower review on intellectual property - I'm disappointed.

Though the report talks of the need for balance (go for it!) and there seems to be a lot of good ideas in there, it seems fairly weighted in one direction.

Apparently

"IP serves three principal functions: to incentivise knowledge creation; to accumulate knowledge in a culture; and to protect a distinctive identity"

Surely the principal aim should be to accumulate knowledge in a culture?

Protection of a distinctive identity is just a method of achieving this, not an aim. The idea that it is necessary for incentivising knowledge creation would imply that there are no other suitable mechanisms for encouraging innovation. Do you really believe that firms would not innovate without IP (that's first leader advantage up the spout). What have universities been doing for last eight centuries?

The idea that listening to a radio is only possible because inventions and creations have been incentivised through the IP system is worthy of a Booker prize.

The report states that new technologies such as genetics, software and databases require IP protection and strongly argues the case for why companies should be able to generate revenue from patents without actually producing products. It argues that such action will increase liquidity in the market for ideas, and that a costly patent process might prevent this.

This implies a cheaper patent system, which probably will result in less scrutiny.

The overall vision for the IP system is that it must enable greater economic productivity - damn it, I thought this was a country not a PLC.

The patent trolls must have had a great Christmas.

Oh yes it is, oh not it's not ...

There is wonderful article on the Patently-O blog, regarding the definition of obviousness in US patent law.

It links through to an article by Mark Smith which provides the following comments on a 1976 case:-

the opinion states that “a patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions” is obvious. Furthermore, the Court requires the combination to be “synergistic” (resulting in an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately). However, the very next sentence in the opinion says “[T]his patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations.”

A ruling which states that combining old (or known) elements together despite producing a more striking result than in previous combinations is not unobvious - that sounds like sense.

I'm a great believer in patents for promoting technological innovation rather than protecting inventors rights.

The key is promoting technological innovation.

This is why :-

1. I'm all in favour of harsh tests for non-obviousness, in fact I'm much more inclined to agree with a demonstratable "flash of genius".

2. With increasing velocity of information and an associated acceleration in discovery (well just look at all those patents!) - I'm also more inclined to agree with a situation where the term of a patent is on a case by case basis with an upper limit. That term to be decided by the length of time in which society could be reasonably expected to independantly discover such a "flash of genius".

3. I don't agree with non-technological innovations being patentable and I do believe in a robust definition of what is technology, on the basis that everything else is excluded.

4. I would agree that patents are redudnant (and therefore should be excluded) where alternative, beneficial and major means of promoting innovation exist (for example open source in software).

5. I would agree that a patent which is not reasonably and meaningfully used in a commercial sense, giving due consideration to the inventor, is not enforceable as it has more to do with protection than promotion i.e trolling.

But then I'm not a patent lawyer. I'm just a great believer in patents as a tool for promoting technological innovation and nothing else.

It's no laughing matter!

EULA's on Food- well chalk that up to another fine prediction!

There was a parody about this subject called ColdPizza by Scott Lazar - an excellent article published in Jan 2006. However back in Nov 2005 I wrote the following comment on Slashdot. Where's Parody Rights Management when you need it? The world is going mad :-)

Slashdot Comment - Nov 2005

Having read the recent news on DRM, I wrote down these exciting new business opportunities on the train to work.

Forget music. All over the world people are copying recipes.

Ok you might [possibly] know how to make a good pizza, but does the original inventor [chef / cook / whatever] ever get credits or royalties?

No!

Society even supports this activity and allows groups such as the Women's Institute (WI) to run cake stalls, selling potentially copyright infringing material. Who owns the recipe to dundee or banana cake?

In order to stop this outrage, I raise a call for arms for the introduction of PRM (physical rights management). Using nano-technology, PRM will introduce mechanisms to ensure that any ingredients purchased (i.e. a tin of tomatoes) are used only in a lawful, non copyright infringing way.

This future will transform your kitchen from a melting pot of illegality [note to advertising group: use images of cute kids making chocolate brownies in an unlawful way interlaced with shots of muggers, burglars and murderers] into a controlled safe environment where both you (as good parents) and your children can cook non copyright infringing food. [note to advertising group: use happy faces of a family unit interspersed with images of a caring yet cool corporation]

Furthermore, PRM, will help prevent any counterfeiting of popular goods (fairy cakes, shepherds pie) by organised crime or terror groups looking for fundraising.

Under PRM, you will no longer buy unlicensed ingredients but instead the right to use an ingredient or product for a legal safe purpose protected by the PRM nano-technology (trademarked as SAFE FOOD).

At the supermarket, SAFE FOOD will determine your purpose of use at the point of sale (i.e. you want to make pizza etc). SAFE FOOD patented technology will then check all the necessary copyright law, pay the relevant royalties necessary by automatically debiting your credit card and finally provide you with a personalised EULA, printed in a clearly unreadable micro-dot on the inside of the tin.

To avoid the consumer being put to any inconvenience, SAFE FOOD does not require any input from the consumer and the placing of the tin in a shopping bag will be legally binding as acceptance of the EULA.

How do we know the purpose of say a tin of tomatoes without input from the consumer?

Simple, using our advanced technology we have been able to create mathematically proven algorithims which use all the currently available information on a consumer to accurately predict the consumer choice. This is our patented technology known as CORRECT CHOICE.

Should you wish to change your mind after purchasing and decide not to make the CORRECT CHOICE recipe (such as making spaghetti bolognese, because let's face it you've eaten too much pizza) then you will be required to purchase another tin of tomatoes licensed for that purpose.

In order to protect your rights and safety - should your ingredient be used for any unlicensed purpose (i.e. not the CORRECT CHOICE recipe), then SAFE FOOD will turn your ingredient into an obnoxious foul smelling mess in order to stop any unlawful acts occurring or being consumed.

This will also prevent theft of your product by another person, as the EULA will specify the recipients of the ingredients eg. the named members of your household and any guest you may have specified at the point of sale.

Furthermore to avoid consumers becoming concerned or confused over how SAFE FOOD or CORRECT CHOICE works, we are introducing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone other than us to understand or question it.

Any possible minor but unlikely side effects?

• An unexpected guest arrives and you have no ingredients with appropriate licenses.
• The licensed owner of the product dies, leaving an entire family hungry and unaware of what purpose the ingredients were purchased for. Was this tin for spaghetti or pizza?
• Errors occur in the nanotechnology causing worldwide famine.
• Large stockpiles of unused tins of tomatoes in each household [please note, this doesn't inconvenience manufacturers of tinned tomatoes who cannot be held responsible for poor consumer planning]
• Data errors in the CORRECT CHOICE algorithm, forcing everyone to eat pizza as all other recipes are not predicted.

[note to PR : let's drop the above for the press release - useful for us to know, but really do you think the average consumer will know what a famine is?]

What are the untold benefits that SAFE FOOD & CORRECT CHOICE will bring to the consumer?

• Prevention of illegal copying and theft which is sponsoring organised crime.
• An explosion in consumer choice of products as the humble tin of tomatoes becomes a tin of tomatoes with a potential wide variety of licensed purposes.
• Greater consumer choice in purchasing methods. Rather than purchasing a whole tin of tomatoes with no licensing, consumers will be able to rent a tin of tomatoes with a limited time frame for use.
• Creation of dual licensing markets - this tin can be used for Pizza and Spaghetti Bolognese - creating much needed new jobs, services and tax revenues.
• Ensuring that poor starving c[r]ooks are properly rewarded for their inventions.
• Creating new wealth generating opportunities in the tomato producing industry, leading to an overall better quality of life for everyone.
• Neighbours will stop annoying you by asking to borrow stuff - like sugar etc. They will just have to go buy their own.
• A boost for the advertising industry. PRM can include such licensing requirements as "must read advertisers message prior to use of tin" or "tin can only be used if Friends is on the TV" etc.

As good parents, you care about your children, you care that the world is a dangerous place and you want a better quality of life for everyone.

We care about tomatoes.

That's why our motto is "care in the community - PRM it's not as insane as you think."

I'm also working on a number of other areas of research including:-

1. Read once books, which combust after use - under our "burn baby burn" programme.
2. Eye implants which turn black at the sight of copyright infringing material. This is part of our "See no infringement, hear no infringement, speak no infringement" programme for biological consumer enhancement.
3. Controlling and licensing the supply of common goods - under our "whose air is it anyway?" programme.
4. Vacuum packed consumer - the ultimate in matrix like, placid end-consumer as a consumption device for industry - under our "what right?" programme.
5. Creative Rights Management - all new works are to some respect derivative products, hence the printing press was based upon writing which was based upon slapping coloured material on cave walls. This is a fascinating project under our "all new knowledge is theft" programme.
6. Legislation against consumer groups under our "hey buddy, we own the consumer not you" programme.
7. Statistical research showing a correlation between the increase in computer hacking (hence crime) and copyright infringement. We have heard reports from some researchers that both these items are linked to the existence of computer technology, however we refute this claim and will not be inviting such researchers to our lavish "the future's bright, the future's a a licensed for madeira cake Orange" conference.

Patently mad.

I meet up with Suw Charman, Open Rights Group, at EuroFoo, and discussed briefly with her about patents and fabrication.

One of the gags in my presentation was about how easy it would be to produce individual antennas and IDs by printing and how that would make some labour people very happy :-(

Naturally, not being an ID card supporter and believing that "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither", I'm not going to blog how to do it.

However, it does raise questions on who owns what in a fabrication world where hardware is more malleable.

Hence, I'm more horrified by the latest wheeze of the EPO and the attempt to create enforceable software patents across Europe.

There goes innovation, creativity and competitiveness - at the least the lawyers and vested interests will be happy.

How about "balancing the interests of patent holders and the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets"?

It's about time that patent duration was changed to a variable amount - based upon how quickly could society be reasonably expected to independently discover such invention.

Giving the increasing pace of innovation, the current limits are too long.

EuroFoo and all that Jazz

It's been a long, long time since I last blogged at length - basically life has been hectic.

Anyway, I've just got back from EuroFoo and EuroOSCON - which were both outstanding events.

I ran one session at EuroFoo - on commoditisation of manufacturing. I gave one talk at EuroOSCON - on commoditisation of manufacturing - and then spent the rest of the time talking about commoditisation of software and our new product Zimki.

This was Zimki's second outing, and we seemed to get a positive response - not just to the product itself, a JavaScript application platform, but also to the ideas behind it and the plans to create an international grid of operating environments.

Nicholas Carr has written another excellent article on this, and the end of corporate computing environments, this is exactly what we have been talking about.

Most evenings I spent in the company of Greg Stein, Ben Laurie, Andrew Kelly, Denise Kalos and Piers Crawley which was wonderful. There were so many interesting people at the conference and it was a truly fantastic experience.

Damian Conway spent some time with helping to get my presentation in shape - something I'm extremely grateful for.

The Maker faire was as usual wild, with some very crazy stuff indeed - including stem cell harvesting! Visions of scary biological manufacturing stuff appearing around the corner.

Anyway, I'm back home now, and there is lots of work to be done and ducks to feed!

Patent vs Innovation

A strong voice in the patent argument (especially against the idea of software patenting) has long been that the patent process no longer supports but inhibits innovation - principally due to a mismatch in the duration of patents and the speed of innovation.

According to IT BRANSCHEN , a six-month research project by Ovum has led to the conclusions that:-

"The current software patent regime hampers innovation and must be radically changed"

Also from the Research Director who led the project.

"If every patent were 'exercised' it is hard to see how anyone would be able to write or sell any software at all."Garry Barnett, Ovum

Attaboy!

Maybe, one day we will see patents (which are a state monopoly provided for an idea) be limited in duration to a timeframe in which society could be reasonably expected to independently create such an idea or a more rigorous application of the novel test or some other factor.

Until that time, software patenting will continue to be driven by a defensive arms race and a patent everything attitude, and this house of cards may drag a noble idea down.

As it stand the trend would seem to be patent vs innovation - which helps no-one in the long run.