The open-source patent conundrum

The open-source patent conundrum | Tech News on ZDNet

Patents are all the rage nowadays, especially in the battle between proprietary and open source. Mr. Perens, who is a key representative of open source, has a very interesting post on it. One take on this is that the developer sitting in a room working on a new memory model thought up that thing on his own, without searching through the USPTO to find out ways of implementing memory models. This seems to indicate software patents = bad. The other side is IBM works on a memory model which they patent and then that engineer talks about it with some friends who talk about it on their blog which makes it into a text book which a developer then sits down and reads and implements a memory model which infringes on the original patent. Does this mean that the developer should be sued? I think there needs to be a gray area. I definitely feel that patents add to the overall development of society if for no other reason than people are paid to sit around and think up cool things which can then be turned into money exclusively for the company that paid them. And those cool things filter out into the economy in countless ways. I definitely do not think it's a catch all, however, as there are lots of cool ideas being thought up by lots of people who are NOT being paid to do so and who will not seek patent protection for them, and these people should not have their thoughts stolen because of that fact. Maybe just having an open period for patent vetting would be the solution... someone wants to patent something and someone has six months to submit prior art. USPTO, let the blogsphere do what the blogsphere does well... your research for you.

Harvard Gazette: Snaring secrets of the Venus flytrap

Harvard Gazette: Snaring secrets of the Venus flytrap

TMQ pointed out (or, more accurately, feared) that this was a federally funded study to determine exactly how the Venus flytrap was able to close, and found this a bad waste of money. I must disagree with him on two counts. First, it's the Venus flytrap... how incredibly cool! The PLANT EATS THINGS. That is badass no matter how you slice it. But second, and more importantly, nature has been developing cool things for about 4 billion years (or less if you're a intelligent design-ist; trust me, it knows how to do things. Like this amazing way of cooling chips that was inspired by the way that butterfly wings cool themselves. Sometimes I think we should spend MORE money figuring out how nature does the stuff it does... worst case: we have a detailed understanding of exactly how cool our world actually is.

U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings

U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings

This is bad. REALLY bad. I don't want to blow this out of proportion, so until I see actual examples of altered findings, I'll reserve judgment. Let me be clear, as well, that I do not feel that this sort of behavior is restricted to the current administration which, unfortunately, the writer chose to indict with the administration's push to revamp the Endangered Species Act. I believe that politicians have been doing this since time immemorial.

However, this is the kind of stuff that blogs and the web will excel at overturning. Wouldn't a simple anonymous blog with the pre-altered data prevent this kind of thing from occurring altogether? The numbers seem extraordinarily large as well. If, as is stated, 31% of scientists HAD been asked to change data, wouldn't that be national news? I think if one had been asked to change her study, that'd be national news. Are they being asked to change data or just findings? I'd love to spend some time drilling into this; I know that everything is subjective, but a little pendulum swing back towards objectivity would be kind of nice.

Microsoft's AntiSpyware hit by a Spyware

Microsoft's AntiSpyware hit by a Spyware

I'm not entirely sure why this is such a big deal. As some of the Slashdot folks were quick to point out, the anti-spyware app tells you not to run it. Once you start ignoring advice like that, what can you expect? Anyhow, be aware that the MS anti-spyware solution is just one of what should be a multi-level security blanket. I know it's not a silver bullet, but I think one of my favorite things about Longhorn is the ability to run as a non-administrator. It'll save so much pain and agony. Some people equate this to welding the hood of your car shut. I think it's a little more like keeping the hood of your car shut with a set of screws, and requiring anyone who comes along to repair your car to own and know how to operate a screwdriver.

Corporations Sue Google over Results for Competitors

Corporations Sue Google over Results for Competitors via NPR

Is it just me, or does it seem like French courts have no idea what the Internets are all about? First the Nazi decision where Yahoo France had to either drop the Nazi items from their auction site or BLOCK ALL OF FRANCE FROM GETTING TO THEM. Yes, because that's realistic.

Now comes the Google decision which is just as bizarre. Imagine that you're a personal shopper for someone. They say, "Have you heard anything about Kraft Mac and Cheese?". You respond, "Yes, it's quite good. You know what else is good? Velvetta Mac and Cheese." You have just committed a trademark violation according to these courts. Alright, it's a little more subtle than that because you don't own the rights to the words "Velvetta Mac and Cheese", or, more specifically, you don't own the rights to SELL the trademark "Velvetta Mac and Cheese". But it's still pretty darned confusing. Does Google have to track all trademarked items? Shouldn't it be the people who bought the words who are actually committing the trademark violation? I feel like the courts are pretty much fumbling around with the whole Internet and current laws just do not apply correctly.

Kansas Schools Struggle with Evolution and Creationism

Kansas Schools Struggle with Evolution and Creationism via NPR

Ok, you don't believe in evolution. Then how do you explain it? Not where we come from, but all the things that are currently dictated by evolutionary theory that we can see today (just as an aside, why is it still a theory? I mean there’s easily as much proof for evolution as there is for gravity). I think there's a big difference in belief when it comes to the evolution that turned proteins into monkeys and humans and the evolution that allows a single organism in a Petri dish of antibiotics to survive and eventually fill the entire dish. Yet, logically, one must lead to the other, right? Do people who believe in intelligent design (man if that isn't the most PC term I’ve ever heard, I don't know what is) believe in the evolution that occurs in the Petri dish?

I believe the tact that evolutionists are taking (the example used in the story was the intelligence found in the organization of DNA) will paint them into a corner. People fifty years ago were saying the same thing about the nucleus of atoms and how their ability to stay together even in the face of science (two positive protons should repel) proved that there was a greater force holding everything together. Apparently it's not the devil who's in the details, it's God. By cherry picking some laws of science, some felt like they could "prove" God was present. I promise you that, regardless of what you believe, in the next 50 years we will know vastly more about the aspects of the universe we live in. Yet this fact should not deter someone's belief! Faith is faith, independent of your perspective on science. Don't try and mix the two.

One thing I was particularly annoyed with in the story, however, was one woman's opinion that her children should not be taught evolutionary theory, because it's wrong. That's exactly the reverse of what should happen; people should be taught EVERYTHING so that you learn how to make an informed choice between two rational positions. Anything else is a recipe for fundamentalism.