WGHubris on September 9th, 2011

Officially, Congress passed patent reform legislation, and officially, President Obama will sign patent reform into law. However, the reality is that nothing of the sort has happened. A couple of very minor tweaks to how the U.S. Patent Office is funded were passed and one patent law reform was included. That reform is not even remotely helpful in stopping the terrible patent litigation that is clogging up the system and stifling legitimate commerce and innovation.

The "reform" in the weak patent legislation that limped out of Congress changes the system from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system. This essentially favors big corporations with a bunch of patent lawyers on staff.

congressHere is how the new patent system will work. If an inventor in Colorado invents a new kind of ski in January and submits a patent application in March, but another company submits a patent application for the same technology in February, the company wins, even if the other guy invented it first and can prove it. The only exception is if the first inventor can PROVE that the company copied his technology. Smaller companies or inventors who don’t race to the patent office could lose out.

On paper, this hurts small inventors, however, it also eliminates one bothersome aspect of the patent system where a company like IBM spends years developing a new technology and the files for a patent and then someone shows up out of the woodwork CLAIMING that they invented it first. Now, those companies won’t have to deal with those kinds of claims.

Failed Patent Reform

Of course, none of the real patent reforms necessary to fix the system were included. Patent trolls are still free to file their claims in the District of East Texas no matter how ridiculously tangential the connection to that area is. (Patent trolls keep a single, empty, office on record so that they can file a case where no one, not the defendant, not the plaintiff, and not the attorneys, actually has a real reason to file there.) For whatever reason, the courts in Eastern Texas have turned themselves into mindless lapdogs for patent troll attorneys, probably because it provides something interesting to do and a little bit of job security, even if it leads to a gross miscarriage of justice. The so-called reform does nothing to address this issue.

In addition, while Congress gleefully carved out exceptions in patent law for those industries willing to pay lobbyists and campaign contributions, they made no effort to fix the issue of overly broad patents of dubious value being used to force companies to pay up simply because it is cheaper and less hassle than to actually be correct.

In other words, things will only get worse as more patent lawyers use dirtier tricks and file broader patents just so that they can go to court and squeeze money from actual businesses. Patent law already has started to resemble the old Mafia extortion scam where a company is forced to pay, "or something bad might happen." Someday, years from now, when the patent system and all of lawsuits clogging the courts is even more of a laughing stock than it is today, Congress might get around to actually doing something meaningful for the U.S. economy and commerce, but until then, nothing substantial changes while Senators and Congressmen can pretend that they did something by pointing to this useless bill and saying, "I voted for patent reform."

Tags: , , ,

WGHubris on August 30th, 2011

Most Americans don’t know much American history, let alone the local history of areas they don’t live in, so let me help those of you not from Colorado out. Denver, Colorado was awarded the Winter Olympics in 1976. If you are familiar with your Olympic history, you might be thinking, no, the 1976 Winter games were held in Innsbruck, Austria. You are right, but that isn’t the story.

The 1976 Winter Olympics were originally awarded to Denver. However, building everything to actually hold the Olympics in Denver required a citizen approved bond initiative that went down in flames. (One of the leaders of the campaign against the Olympics was Richard Lamm, who leveraged that notoriety into becoming Governor of Colorado.)

Denver remains the only city to ever give up the Olympics once having been formally awarded them by the International Olympic Committee.

Winter Olympics in Denver 2022

Every so often, some folks in Denver decide that it would be a good idea to have the Winter Olympics in Denver. This time, they are shooting to have the Winter Olympics in Denver in 2022.

On paper, having the Olympics in Denver sounds like a great idea. The reality, however, is a different story.

Colorado and Denver sound like wintery, snowy, places to the rest of the world. The reality is somewhat different. While it does get cold and it does snow, it doesn’t reliably do it all that often. Denver is a semi-arid climate, and that is true in the winter as well.

Denver gets big snow storms, that is true. Denver does not get snow every day. In fact, the Denver tourism office likes to tout that the city gets 300 days of sunshine per year. Do a little math and you’ll realize that means it isn’t sunny only 65 days each year. Throw in some cloudy days in Spring and Summer and you’ll see that it just isn’t actually snowing all that often in Denver. Storms come and go quickly.

Of course, none of that really matters because Denver isn’t in the mountains. The city’s well publicized moniker Mile High City is true. There are specially colored steps at the Capital Building showing exactly where one mile (5,280 ft.) above sea level is. Likewise, a row of purple seats at Coors Field, where the Colorado Rockies play, also denotes where one mile high is. But, the entire city of Denver and the surrounding metro area are relatively flat. No luge or skiing tracks are going to work around here.

The catch is that the slopes and snows in Colorado take place in the mountains. Weather forecasts regularly call for a chance of snow, but only above 7,000 feet or above 10,000 feet. The ski areas that Colorado is so famous for are well above that. In other words, fully half of the Winter Olympics won’t even take place in Denver, they’ll take place somewhere up in Summit County. The ski resorts in Utah, for example, are much closer to Salt Lake City.

In order for any of the Olympics to actually take place in Denver, you would have to have a split venue scenario where the indoor events, mainly those that take place on a skating rink, are in Denver, and all the outdoor events are up in the mountains somewhere.

Unfortunately, Colorado’s premier ski areas are more than two hours away from Denver, and that’s  in good traffic, which brings up the next catch.

The average winter weekend clogs I-70 with people heading up from Denver and Boulder for a ski weekend or day trip. Imagine adding the traffic of Olympic spectators and Olympic teams heading up for various events. And, I-70 isn’t the easiest highway to add lanes to. Another lane of traffic through the Eisenhower Tunnel would require another bore, a decade long project.

Again, in order to be even remotely practical, there would have to be two Olympic Villages, one in Denver and one up in the mountains.

Denver is a great city, and it is a wonderful place to live. Unfortunately, it just isn’t a very reasonable location for the Winter Olympics.

Tags: ,

WGHubris on August 5th, 2011

Here is a partial list of the things I need to read to stay on top of all the things from my Twitter feed that I have found interesting or that I think I need to know for business or personal reasons.

twitter-reading-listI use the "Star" function in TweetDeck to bookmark tweets that I want to follow up on later. That’s because none of the usable Twitter clients out there allow for a "bookmark" or "read it later" function. Some people claim that would defeat the purpose of Twitter, but the fact is that users in my feed often share interesting, relevant and COMPLEX information via links that they Tweet about. Since I read a lot of my Twitter feed in between other projects, and often while on my Android smartphone, delving into these articles in "real time" doesn’t make sense. That leaves me with two options: either wade back through my feed until I find those links again (those that I remember, that is), or flag them somehow so that I can find them all again later.

Using the star functionality to flag item is just fine except for that it implies an approval of the item BEFORE I get a chance to actually read it. I don’t really like that, even if my stars aren’t exactly the kind of thing that moves the heavens.

If someone is looking for a new feature to add to their Twitter client, I suggest a bookmark or save for later function.

Oh, and more important than that, can someone PLEASE make a mobile Twitter client with the most important Android feature there is? Make a client that can be moved to the SD card? I don’t need a stupid widget. When I want Twitter, I open Twitter.

P.S. While we are at it, Google can you figure out how to allow an app to be installed to the SD card AND have a widget? Not every widget has to take the kind of power or instant access that being in the main memory offers.

August Reading List

There are a lot more of these, but if I spend all my time linking them here, I won’t get the chance to read any of them.

On the bright side, with the links securely saved here, I can clear seven tweets out of my "favorites" column on TweetDeck.

 

Happy Friday, Everyone.

Tags: , ,

WGHubris on July 19th, 2011

There has been a ton of sound and fury regarding Google’s social networking website, Google+.

I’m Brian Nelson on Google Plus if you are interested.

Well, actually, there has been a lot of noise in the echo chamber of the techie dome. It turns out that none of my family members, nor any of my no-IT friends have even heard of it. Even less are interested in doing anything with it. Many of googleplusthem get to see pictures from friends and family on Facebook and keep up with what is going on with those same people via Facebook status updates. Unlike the Scoble’s of the world, they don’t want or need anything beyond that.

What seems to make this all the more interesting is the difference between the techie impulse to be on the leading-edge of technology and the I already have what I need impulse of non-techies.

Facebook versus Google Beginning

There are plenty of technology writers out there comparing the nuances of Facebook to Google Plus to Twitter. There are those who already have crowned one of them the champion and proclaimed that it is only a matter of time. Plenty of pundits have already whipped out their terminology bag and written about the either insurmountable network effects of Facebook or the over-hyped network effects of Facebook.

For those of you without a techno-speak / business babble dictionary, network effects is the concept that by having a lot of people already in place (your "network") you are more likely to start using, or keep using, a particular service or technology.

For example, a grandmother may be on Facebook for no reason other than to see pictures of her grandkids. Nothing Google does will make that grandmother sign up until someone in her network (one of her kids, in this example) starts posting pictures of grandchildren over there.

Which brings us to all of the noise.

Compare Twitter to Facebook, for example. There are millions of stories about your (or someone you know) mom wanting to be your friend on Facebook. Ever hear of a mom who wanted to follow you on Twitter? Despite having millions of users, Twitter is not as mainstream as Facebook despite a huge number of users and a commanding spot in the field of social networking. Google+ is neither Facebook nor Twitter yet. It is simply new. It is not, however mainstream in any way.

Techies love to rush to the next big thing and then pronounce how it will change our lives and everyone will be using it in the future. It rarely works out that way. While most technology types spend plenty of time online, and therefore have plenty of time to try and use numerous services, most non-techies have a more limited interest in what happens on the internet. In fact, the entire value of Facebook comes down to not what it does, can do, or will do, but that it has drawn in the mainstream population as users. That didn’t happen quickly, it took years.

Google+ has a big head start in that most people who use the internet at all have heard of the company and use its search service. But, it is a much smaller part of the population that use its ubiquitous email service and and even smaller part that use any of its other services. For them, "another Facebook" is not something that they need or want, no matter who is behind it.

As of today, that is about all you can say. Anyone predicting the assent or demise of Google+ is missing the boat. If, and only if, Google+ can extend beyond the internet-savvy population will it have any affect on Facebook. For that to happen, it will take time and some non-techies to get on board.

Tags: ,