<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;ibm&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Evolving The Touchscreen Keyboard</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02532813203/dailydirt-evolving-touchscreen-keyboard.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02532813203/dailydirt-evolving-touchscreen-keyboard.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031125/1026245.shtml">QWERTY</a> keyboard layout, which was created around 1875, was originally designed to prevent typewriter keys from jamming. This was done by arranging letters that were most commonly used together farther apart. While the QWERTY layout is still used today, it may not be the best layout for virtual touchscreen keyboards, so there have been many efforts to design alternative keyboard layouts. Here are just a few examples. 

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://phys.org/news/2013-04-scientists-keyboard-layout-screen-devices.html" href="http://bit.ly/Zy3o6a">The new KALQ keyboard layout enables faster thumb-typing on touchscreen devices.</a> In the new layout, all the vowels except for "y" are placed in the area for the right thumb, while more keys are assigned to the left thumb. After a short amount of practice, users were able to type 34% faster with the KALQ keyboard than with a traditional QWERTY layout. [<a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-04-scientists-keyboard-layout-screen-devices.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57575214-1/could-minuum-finally-evolve-the-virtual-qwerty-keyboard/" href="http://cnet.co/101p46l">Minuum is a space-efficient, single-row keyboard layout that uses auto-correction algorithms to intelligently predict the words users are attempting to type.</a> The traditional QWERTY order of letters is mostly in place to make it easier to transition from standard software keyboards, and the powerful predictive typing algorithms ensure accurate text entry.[<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57575214-1/could-minuum-finally-evolve-the-virtual-qwerty-keyboard/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424827/a-touch-screen-keyboard-that-accommodates-you/" href="http://bit.ly/18aHbyb">IBM envisions a virtual keyboard that can adapt to each user's unique typing style.</a> The keyboard would gather data on the user's typing habits and compile an "anatomical profile" of the user, which it would then use to subtly adapt the keyboard to the user. [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424827/a-touch-screen-keyboard-that-accommodates-you/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02532813203/dailydirt-evolving-touchscreen-keyboard.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02532813203/dailydirt-evolving-touchscreen-keyboard.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02532813203/dailydirt-evolving-touchscreen-keyboard.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110222/02532813203</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:59:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>IBM Sends 200 Execs To Capitol Hill To Demand The Right To Send Your Private Info To The NSA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/11401222711/ibm-sends-200-execs-to-swarm-capital-hill-demand-right-to-send-your-private-info-to-nsa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/11401222711/ibm-sends-200-execs-to-swarm-capital-hill-demand-right-to-send-your-private-info-to-nsa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about various tech companies <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130411/15571022683/shameful-tech-companies-fighting-against-necessary-cfaa-reform-cispa-fixes.shtml">supporting CISPA</a>, which is really shameful and short-sighted.  Yes, it protects them from liability if they trample all over your privacy and provide your private info to the government -- which is why they support it.  But if they were truly customer focused companies, they would know that violating your privacy is no way to build a loyal customer base.  And, apparently, the right to violate your privacy and hand that info to the government is so important to IBM that it has <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/293715-ibm-launching-cispa-advocacy-tour" target="_blank">sent 200 executives to Capital Hill today to lobby in favor of passing CISPA</a>.  CISPA is expected to go to a floor vote in the House either this Wednesday or Thursday.
<blockquote><i>
Nearly 200 senior IBM executives are flying into Washington to press for the passage of a controversial cybersecurity bill that will come up for a vote in the House this week.
<br /><br />
The IBM executives will pound the pavement on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday, holding nearly 300 meetings with lawmakers and staff. Over the course of those two days, their mission is to convince lawmakers to back a bill that&#8217;s intended to make it easier for industry and government to share information about cyber threats with each other in real time.
</i></blockquote>
What they still can't explain is what laws <i>currently</i> get in the way of this information sharing?  We've been asking for years and <b>no one</b> has answered.  Everyone agrees that information sharing around an attack can be useful in stopping it, but no one has explained why that information sharing (a) requires a new law or (b) can't be done without wiping out <b>all</b> basic privacy protections for personal info currently provided under existing law.
<br /><br />
Even more ridiculous is that IBM <b>flat out admits</b> that they want to be able to send your info to the NSA.  We've pointed out for a while that one of the major concerns with CISPA is that the NSA -- a military agency -- would get access to your info, despite the general prohibition on spying on Americans.  Of course, the NSA has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/16141120116/how-random-lawsuit-about-telco-policy-probably-resulted-broad-secret-law-enabling-nsa-to-spy-you.shtml">twisted</a> that mandate ridiculously, such that it believes it can now spy on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/12503920170/nsa-whistleblower-explains-how-nsa-is-collecting-data-all-you-hes-sorry-about-it.shtml"><i>anything</i></a> so long as they claim it may <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/23182420380/house-approves-bill-to-spy-americans-misrepresenting-lying-about-whats-bill.shtml">help</a> them in finding a foreign threat.  Technically, the law is about the "target" of the information, and the NSA (and potentially the secret ruling from the FISA Court) has interpreted this to mean that as long as the target of the <i>investigation</i> is as foreign threat, then the NSA can snoop through anything in pursuit of that target.
<br /><br />
Of course, most folks have been trying to <i>play down</i> the fact that the NSA would get the info.  But not IBM.  Nope, they're thrilled to send your private info right to the NSA:
<blockquote><i>
[IBM VP of government affairs Chris] Padilla, however, says companies need to be able to share threat data directly with the NSA &#8220;because that&#8217;s where the expertise is.&#8221;
<br /><br />
&#8220;It really is a simple matter. The expertise in the U.S. government on cybersecurity largely rests in one place, and that's the National Security Agency,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They tend to know the most, the soonest about cyber threats and I think, frankly, there is a certain amount of feeling in the business community that you should be able to work directly and share information directly with the agency that has the most expertise.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
While the NSA does have <i>some</i> knowledge on cybersecurity, it's an exaggeration to suggest that they have "the expertise" on the subject.  It also does nothing to explain why your private info should be included.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/11401222711/ibm-sends-200-execs-to-swarm-capital-hill-demand-right-to-send-your-private-info-to-nsa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/11401222711/ibm-sends-200-execs-to-swarm-capital-hill-demand-right-to-send-your-private-info-to-nsa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/11401222711/ibm-sends-200-execs-to-swarm-capital-hill-demand-right-to-send-your-private-info-to-nsa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-one,-guys</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130415/11401222711</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Documentary On The History Of Apple And Microsoft Show It Was All About Copying, Not Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130409/09212322633/documentary-history-apple-microsoft-show-it-was-all-about-copying-not-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130409/09212322633/documentary-history-apple-microsoft-show-it-was-all-about-copying-not-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently posted about an absolutely ridiculous NY Times op-ed piece in which Pat Choate argued both that patent laws have been getting weaker, and that if we had today's patent laws in the 1970s that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/01463022521/author-claims-that-if-apple-microsoft-started-today-theyd-fail-without-stronger-patent-protection.shtml">Apple and Microsoft</a> wouldn't have survived since bigger companies would just copy what they were doing and put them out of business.  We noted that this was completely laughable to anyone who knew the actual history.  A day or so ago, someone (and forgive me, because I can no longer find the tweet) pointed me on Twitter to a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8YL6aufrd0" target="_blank">45 minute excerpt from a documentary about the early days of Microsoft and Apple</a> and it's worth watching just to show how laughably wrong Choate obviously is.
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m8YL6aufrd0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
There are two key themes that stand out incredibly strongly in this:  both Microsoft and Apple did an awful lot of what they did by shamelessly copying the work of others, and the big companies floating around the space (mainly IBM and Xerox) clearly had no clue at all about what was going on.  The few times they discovered interesting things, they didn't know what to do with them, and let Microsoft and Apple walk all over them to build something better that people wanted.  And when they tried to jump into these markets by copying the work of Apple and Microsoft, they tended to do a really bad job of it.  On the copying front, while most people are familiar with Apple copying the GUI from Xerox, less well known is the story of Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products reverse engineering CP/M based on understanding CP/M's APIs to create the early versions of DOS that Microsoft licensed to IBM.
<br /><br />
Also noteworthy: no discussion of patents at all.  At the very end of the clip there's a bit of a discussion from former Apple CEO John Sculley concerning Apple's legal fight with Microsoft over the look and feel of the GUI.  He mentions there was nothing patentable, but that they felt it was a copyright violation.  However, he also notes that Apple's strong belief that they could stop Microsoft via copyright also led to complacency within Apple, and less focus on competing by innovation.
<br /><br />
In other words, the claims Choate makes are laughable.  There was little to no reliance on patents during the early days, and a very strong culture of copying anything and everything, while competing by trying to out-innovate each other.  Furthermore, big companies couldn't figure out what was going on, even if they wanted to copy these successful upstarts.  At one point, Larry Ellison jokes about how IBM stupidly ceded the chip market to Intel and the OS/application market to Microsoft when it could have owned it all.
<br /><br />
One point about the video.  The YouTube link says this is from the "documentary" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_Silicon_Valley" target="_blank"><i>Pirates of Silicon Valley</i></a>.  That's incorrect.  If I remember correctly, <i>Pirates of Silicon Valley</i> was actually a "TV movie" based on the same subject material, with Noah Wylie playing Steve Jobs and Anthony Michael Hall playing Bill Gates.  Instead, I'm pretty sure that the clips are actually from the documentary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Nerds" target="_blank"><i>Triumph of the Nerds</i></a>, put together and narrated by Mark Stephens, who is better known as Robert X. Cringely (there's another interesting historical story about the legal fight over the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely" target="_blank">Cringely name</a>, but that's a totally different tangent).  This documentary actually came out in 1996, so it's interesting to see how it mostly predates the internet (though there is some discussion of the internet), Jobs' return to Apple and a variety of other things that happened over the past 15 years.  Either way, it should put to rest Choate's silly claims.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130409/09212322633/documentary-history-apple-microsoft-show-it-was-all-about-copying-not-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130409/09212322633/documentary-history-apple-microsoft-show-it-was-all-about-copying-not-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130409/09212322633/documentary-history-apple-microsoft-show-it-was-all-about-copying-not-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-reminder</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130409/09212322633</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:08:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Backs Away Quietly From Its CISPA Support</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/13385722326/facebook-backs-away-quietly-its-cispa-support.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/13385722326/facebook-backs-away-quietly-its-cispa-support.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Many in the internet community were disappointed a year ago when Facebook came out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120413/12441918486/challenge-to-facebook-withdraw-cispa-support-until-bill-is-fixed-replaced.shtml">in favor of CISPA</a>. Facebook made its case publicly, agreeing that there were some privacy and civil liberties concerns with the bill, but that on the whole the bill was good.  Of course, more cynical people might point out that since the general immunity provisions of CISPA would protect Facebook from liability in sharing info with the government, that of course they'd like it.  However, it appears that Facebook is reconsidering that position, perhaps aware of how much public opposition there is to CISPA.  Facebook is <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57574381-38/facebook-ends-love-affair-with-cispa-cybersecurity-bill/" target="_blank">no longer listed as a CISPA supporter</a>, though it also has not come out directly against the bill.  Instead, it issued a statement that says basically nothing:
<blockquote><i>
We are encouraged by the continued attention of Congress to this important issue and we look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to find a legislative balance that promotes government sharing of cyberthreat information with the private sector while also ensuring the privacy of our users.
</i></blockquote>
Still, it's encouraging that a company, like Facebook, which really does rely on the support of their userbase, appears to at least recognize that something like CISPA might not be good for its users.  In fact, this seems similar to when <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120428/00142918694/microsoft-slowly-backing-away-cispa-support-worries-about-privacy-issues.shtml">Microsoft backed away</a> from its CISPA support last year as well.  The article linked above notes that Microsoft still feels the same way, citing the concerns about user privacy with the current draft of CISPA.
<br /><br />
So, who is <a href="http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-letters-support" target="_blank">supporting CISPA</a>?  The <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03013921992/big-telcos-love-cispa-more-immunity-violating-our-customers-privacy-sign-us-up.shtml">telcos</a> are still there, not surprisingly, as well as mostly infrastructure providers, rather than any company that has a bunch of its own internet users.  So, you see IBM, Intel and Juniper Networks.  But there is not a single real "internet" company in the bunch any more. Perhaps that should be a loud hint for CISPA's sponsors that the bill is not a good thing for the internet world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/13385722326/facebook-backs-away-quietly-its-cispa-support.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/13385722326/facebook-backs-away-quietly-its-cispa-support.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/13385722326/facebook-backs-away-quietly-its-cispa-support.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130314/13385722326</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:53:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/14542221635/ibm-researcher-feeds-watson-supercomputer-urban-dictionary-very-quickly-regrets-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/14542221635/ibm-researcher-feeds-watson-supercomputer-urban-dictionary-very-quickly-regrets-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a parent, some of your proudest moments occur when your children begin to talk. After several months of ear-shredding cries and indistinguishable babble, they finally begin to communicate in a language you can understand. A first word is an indescribable joy, whether it&#39;s "mama," "dada" or "roku." The future now seems to be an amazing place where you and your child will strive towards excellence <i>together</i>, culminating in a comfortable retirement in which you live off their immense earnings as a person of brilliance.<br />
<br />
Shortly thereafter, you begin to rue the day they ever learned the (now) cursed language of their ancestors.<br />
<br />
It starts with the incessant barrage of questions in a meandering quest for knowledge, followed by the barrage of questions (mainly, "Why?") that greet every suggestion, criticism or direct order. Shortly thereafter, it&#39;s followed by questions directed at your parenting skills, cultural tastes, archaic slang use, rhetorical devices and sense of direction. At the point where you&#39;re wishing their language development had followed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon" target="_blank">Charlie Gordon&#39;s "learning curve,"</a> you&#39;re asked to make a surprise appearance at the school administrator&#39;s office to explain a sudden outburst of particularly inventive cursing from your former "pride and joy."<br />
<br />
So it is also with artificial life.<br />
<br />
Watson, IBM&#39;s Jeopardy-contestant supercomputer, showed the world that, with the right programming, any puny human could be bested in a mildly snooty game show that handed out answers and asked for questions. However, the quest for true artificial intelligence is still ongoing.<br />
<br />
So, in the interest of science, <a href="http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/07/ibm-watson-slang/" target="_blank">the whole of human knowledge (Internet Edition&trade;) was dropped into Watson&#39;s brain</a> and then... the problems began.
<blockquote>
<i>Two years ago, Brown attempted to teach Watson the Urban Dictionary. The popular website contains definitions for terms ranging from Internet abbreviations like OMG, short for "Oh, my God," to slang such as "hot mess."</i><br />
<br />
<i>But Watson couldn&#39;t distinguish between polite language and profanity -- which the Urban Dictionary is full of. Watson picked up some bad habits from reading Wikipedia as well. In tests it even used the word "bullshit" in an answer to a researcher&#39;s query.</i></blockquote>
Well, it appears that every teacher&#39;s distrust of the internet in general is well-earned. It&#39;s nothing but quasi-facts dressed up in four-letter words, like a World Book Encyclopedia annotated by 4chan&#39;s /b/ board. (I&#39;m not going to link to it. I won&#39;t have your misclicks weighing on my soul.)&nbsp;Still, it&#39;s disheartening to know that the use of the word "bullshit" (even correctly) is not considered a sign of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Sure, the word itself may be inappropriate, but under certain circumstances, it is <i>by far</i> the most appropriate answer.<br />
<br />
Fortunately for Watson&#39;s team, they had the option to remove all this useful knowledge before it offended other researchers who weren&#39;t as used to being coldly called on their bullshit.
<blockquote>
<i>Ultimately, Brown&#39;s 35-person team developed a filter to keep Watson from swearing and scraped the Urban Dictionary from its memory. But the trial proves just how thorny it will be to get artificial intelligence to communicate naturally.</i></blockquote>
It also shows that artificial intelligence has one huge advantage over regular intelligence: the ability to permanently forget. We lowly humans are stuck with a brain that constantly reminds us (especially if we spend much time at places like the aforementioned /b/ board) that what is seen, cannot be unseen.<br />
<br />
Watson, having been de-swearified and brainwashed, is now headed to a better place.
<blockquote>
<i>Brown is now training Watson as a diagnostic tool for hospitals.</i></blockquote>
There it will be able to use its acquired knowledge to battle health issues like <a href="http://cancer.urbanup.com/1210697" target="_blank">cancer</a>,&nbsp;<a href="http://aids.urbanup.com/3263438" target="_blank">AIDS</a>, <a href="http://diabetes.urbanup.com/3727937" target="_blank">diabetes</a>&nbsp;and <a href="http://dissociative-facebook-identity-disorder.urbanup.com/5885737" target="_blank">Dissociative Facebook Identity Disorder</a>.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/14542221635/ibm-researcher-feeds-watson-supercomputer-urban-dictionary-very-quickly-regrets-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/14542221635/ibm-researcher-feeds-watson-supercomputer-urban-dictionary-very-quickly-regrets-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/14542221635/ibm-researcher-feeds-watson-supercomputer-urban-dictionary-very-quickly-regrets-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hateful-day-when-I-received-life-you-only-live-once-smh-and-etc.</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130110/14542221635</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:23:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>IBM Patent Lawyer Says The Patent System Works Fine Because... Hey Look Over There!</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/08040920985/ibm-patent-lawyer-says-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/08040920985/ibm-patent-lawyer-says-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ IBM's Chief Patent Counsel, Manny Schecter, has one of the most ridiculous defenses of the patent system you'll ever see over at Wired, entitled <a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/with-all-due-respect-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/" target="_blank">With All Due Respect: The Patent System's Not Broken</a>.  Having debated the patent system for years, I've noticed a pattern among patent system defenders who are big time patent lawyers.  Their argument tends to amount to: see this wonderful thing?  It exists because we have patents.  Period.  The fact that whatever it is they're pointing to probably has nothing to do with patents will never be acknowledged.  Schecter's argument is a perfect example of this.
<blockquote><i>
Why would a company spend billions of dollars to build a microprocessor-manufacturing plant employing thousands of skilled workers in the U.S., if it could only protect its technology by obtaining patents in other countries?
</i></blockquote>
I love idiotic rhetorical speculative questions like this that assume it's impossible to answer in any way other than the one the questioner wants... especially when <i>the actual evidence</i> tells a completely different story.  It turns out that we have examples of countries with weak or no patent systems -- and they did invest tons in manufacturing plants, employing thousands of skilled workers.  As covered in Eric Schiff's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/books/20040712/0132242_F.shtml">research</a> decades ago, both the Netherlands and Switzerland had extremely weak or non-existent patent systems at the time they industrialized -- and both built up industries that involved huge capital expenditure, without the ability to protect the patents at home.  Similarly, research by David Levine and Michele Boldrin highlighted how the Italian pharmaceutical industry developed to be quite impressive at a time when pharmaceuticals could not be patented in that country.
<br /><br />
The reason for this is not difficult to assess <i>if you're not a patent lawyer</i>.  It's that companies don't sell "patents," they sell products.  And you can sell products whether or not they're patented.  If you build something people want, you can figure out a way to sell it -- even if someone copies you.  In fact, what plenty of other research has shown is that (again, contrary to what many lawyers believe) copying market leaders is often a hell of a lot <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1538058817.shtml">more difficult</a> than people believe.  And, of course, even if you have a direct copy, it doesn't mean you can really compete.  The first mover advantage is important, but so is knowing how to market and sell products, and copiers often don't do a good job on that front.  So, yes, there are plenty of reasons companies would spend a lot of money without patents.  And we know that already because the evidence says so.
<blockquote><i>
Why would a venture capital firm fund a social-networking service provider if the company could not obtain patents on its innovative software backbone, preventing others from easily copying it?
</i></blockquote>
Uh, again, because they're not selling the patents, but the service.  And plenty of smart VCs fund social networking companies without patents.  Let's take a look at one of the most popular social networking sites out there today: Tumblr.  The company has zero patents.  Zero.  And it raised money.  From whom?  From one of the most respected venture capitalists around: Fred Wilson, who has spoken out directly about how much <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/18502014596/investors-speaking-up-about-patents-harming-innovation.shtml">harm patents do</a> to innovation, and why it makes no sense to invest in a company because of their patents, as opposed to their actual product or service.
<br /><br />
So we're now two for two on completely ignorant "rhetorical" questions from Schecter, showing that the true answers to his questions disprove his point.  And that's just in the first paragraph.  Let's jump forward a bit.
<blockquote><i>
But here&#8217;s the thing: Patent disputes like this are a natural characteristic of a vigorously competitive industry.
<br /><br />
And they&#8217;re nothing new: Similar skirmishes have historically occurred in areas as diverse as sewing machines, winged flight, agriculture, and telegraph technology. Each marked the emergence of incredible technological advances, and each generated similar outcries about the patent system.
</i></blockquote>
So because we've made this mistake before, it's okay to make it again and again?  What kind of logic is that?  Seriously.
<blockquote><i>
We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average, according to economic historian Zorina Kahn. The rate of patent litigation was twice what it is today compared to some decades in the mid-19th century.
</i></blockquote>
This is a <i>completely moronic and meaningless measure</i>.  Why?  Because the number of patents being granted today <i>far, far, far</i> exceeds the number granted in the past.  The percentage of patents that are litigated over doesn't matter.  We're talking about the impact of the lawsuits.  The fact that the patent office grants a ridiculous number of patents today that never are used in litigation has no impact on that whatsoever.  This is what's known as throwing out bullshit statistics when the actual data goes against you.
<blockquote><i>
Economists also tell us that 75 percent of a company&#8217;s value is attributable to its intellectual property (IP) -- and that IP-intensive industries contribute $5 trillion per year to the U.S. economy. These industries account for about 35 percent of gross domestic product and 40 million jobs, including 28 percent of the jobs in the United States.
</i></blockquote>
Where to start?  First off, <i>which</i> economists?  Second, having your value attributed to your "intellectual property" (loosely defined) is <i>not the same thing</i> as saying that it's <i>because of intellectual property laws</i>.  This is a common and ridiculous mistake that many make -- assuming that because the things currently covered by IP laws are important, the laws themselves must be important.  Ideas, content, innovation etc. all exist absent IP laws.  This is something that patent lawyers seem to conveniently forget or ignore.  Next, the $5 trillion number and the 40 million jobs claim -- well, that's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120412/01530018462/ridiculous-white-house-report-pretends-getting-copyrights-patents-trademarks-means-you-benefit-them.shtml">equally bogus</a>, as we've discussed before.  It's based on the ridiculous and obviously faulty belief that these jobs and "contribution" to the economy are due to "IP laws" and not other economic activity such as <i>people actually selling stuff</i>.  And those jobs?  Yeah, anyone who claims that has lost all credibility, because, remember, it's actually mostly about <i>trademark</i>, and that means that 2.5 million of those jobs are actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120607/10055319241/feds-say-we-need-stronger-ip-laws-because-grocery-stores-employ-lots-people.shtml">people working at grocery stores</a>.  Sorry, dude, you don't get to claim the checkout bagger as a reason why we need stronger patent laws.  But that's exactly what he does.
<blockquote><i>
Six of the 10 companies globally with the highest software revenues are U.S. companies, including the top three. In other words: The success of the U.S. software industry correlates with its use of software patents to protect its innovations. If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world.
</i></blockquote>
Well, let's start with the basic point that correlation does not equal causation.  In fact, let's dig deeper and point out that in nearly every case, the patents <i>came after</i> the success.  That is, these companies have used patents to restrict competition, not as a way to get big.  Of course, Boldrin and Levine's research has shown that to be the case historically as well.  Strong IP laws and enforcement tends to <i>trail</i> innovation, rather than the other way around.  I don't know which "list" Schecter is using here, but we'll go with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies" target="_blank">the software top 100</a> -- and it confirms that theory.  Top of the list?  Microsoft.  The same Microsoft whose founder once said:
<blockquote><i>
 If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today&#8217;s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. 
</i></blockquote>
Not exactly the ringing endorsement Schecter believes it is.  Yes, lots of big companies have patents, but that's because they need to have patents these days or they get sued by others who have patents.  Schecter knows this because he lives this daily (sometimes in helping IBM sue other companies for innovating).  Need we remind Schecter of the famous story of IBM showing up at Sun with a patent lawsuit, and after being told that Sun didn't infringe on any of the patents, telling Sun:
<blockquote><i>
"OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" 
</i></blockquote>
That's not innovation.  That's extortion.  And Schecter is defending it.
<blockquote><i>
Ever since U.S. courts made it clear that copyright is unavailable to protect their ideas, developers have sought to protect inventions embodied in their software via patents. Denying patent protection for software will cause these developers to look for other ways to protect their IP investment &#8212; resulting in code that is less open, less accessible, and less interoperable.
</i></blockquote>
Uh... copyright has never been about protecting "ideas," only expression, so I'm not sure what he's getting at here.  Furthermore, part of the big problem with software patents today is how they're <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/23461020394/fixing-software-patents-actually-applying-existing-patent-law.shtml">broadly claiming</a> way too much.  If I understand his argument here, it's that if we fix that, and stop them from using monopolies too broadly, they'll just try to lock up their software. Except we already know that fails in the marketplace in the long term.  Over the long run, customers demand more open, accessible and interoperable solutions.  Why do you think IBM bet so strongly on Linux backed up with <i>a giant service business</i>?  Because it knew that there was money in providing services around open, accessible and interoperable systems.  If a company is stupid enough to go in the other direction, it will fail in the marketplace.  No problem there.
<br /><br />
In the end, none of the arguments he makes even come close to making sense.  At best, he argues some sort of bizarre correlation to make his point, but most of the time he's just pointing elsewhere and pretending it has something to do with patents.  We could just as easily argue that patents have caused population growth in the US.  I mean, look, the population has grown... and we have patents!  And it would be just as meaningless as every single argument he makes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/08040920985/ibm-patent-lawyer-says-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/08040920985/ibm-patent-lawyer-says-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/08040920985/ibm-patent-lawyer-says-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-that-got-to-do-with-patents?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121109/08040920985</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:14:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Two Years Later, Lobbying By Microsoft &amp; IBM Creates Loophole In New Zealand To Allow Software Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18111920199/two-years-later-lobbying-microsoft-ibm-creates-loophole-new-zealand-to-allow-software-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18111920199/two-years-later-lobbying-microsoft-ibm-creates-loophole-new-zealand-to-allow-software-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may remember a few years ago there was some controversy down in New Zealand over software patents.  There was a plan to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1852558798.shtml">explicitly outlaw</a> software patents, but then someone accidentally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0224529933.shtml">leaked</a> the fact that big tech companies (mainly US ones, like Microsoft and IBM) had lobbied hard against outlawing software patents, leading to a change in plans.  After <i>that</i> leak resulted in more public outcry it was claimed that the proposal would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/23550310221.shtml">go back</a> to outlawing <i>most</i>, but not all software patents.  Well, it seems that the supporters of the big US software firms were just biding their time.  As various reports are noting, more than two years after all of this, <a href="http://legislation.govt.nz/sop/government/2012/0120/latest/whole.html" target="_blank">proposed amendments have finally been made</a> to the bill, and they appear to <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/sop/government/2012/0120/latest/DLM4688813.html" target="_blank">create a massive loophole for software patents</a>, which certainly seems to <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_MS_deciding_New_Zealand_legislation" target="_blank">reflect the desires of Microsoft and IBM's lobbying efforts</a> in the country.  One hopes that further public outcry will finally make Kiwi politicians realize that they don't have to do what American companies demand...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18111920199/two-years-later-lobbying-microsoft-ibm-creates-loophole-new-zealand-to-allow-software-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18111920199/two-years-later-lobbying-microsoft-ibm-creates-loophole-new-zealand-to-allow-software-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/18111920199/two-years-later-lobbying-microsoft-ibm-creates-loophole-new-zealand-to-allow-software-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tried-to-wait-it-out?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/18111920199</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Spotify In A Box: Why Sharing Will Never Be Stopped</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Most people will be familiar with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law">Moore's Law</a>, usually stated in the form that processing power doubles every two years (or 18 months in some versions.)  But just as important are the equivalent compound gains for storage and connectivity speeds, sometimes known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kryder">Kryder's Law</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%27s_Law#Contributions">Nielsen's Law</a> respectively.
</p><p>
To see why, consider that the IBM PC XT had a 10 Mbyte hard drive when it was launched in 1983, which meant you couldn't even fit a single song on it.  Similarly, the first widely-used modem, the 1981 Hayes Smartmodem, had a maximum speed of 300 baud: to transfer a digitized song using a dial-up connection would have taken around 500 hours. 
</p><p>
With those kind of figures, it's easy to see why the recording industry underestimated the threat that file sharing would become once the Internet arrived: based on the past, it was almost inconceivable that people would ever swap music between computers.  Of course, once that did start to happen, and the shape of the future became obvious to many, the industry nonetheless wilfully ignored the facts and the trends at every turn, when instead it should have taken the lead in re-inventing media for the Internet age.
</p><p>
That woeful history of refusing to accept the implications of rapidly-advancing technologies makes this <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227382/60TB_disk_drives_could_be_a_reality_in_2016">prediction</a>, found via Slashdot, even more fateful:

<i><blockquote>Technologies that will make it possible to expand disk density include heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR), which Seagate patented in 2006. Seagate has already said it will be able to produce a 60TB 3.5-in. hard drive by 2016.</blockquote></i>

Assuming Seagate or someone else delivers, that 60 terabyte hard disk could store around 10 million typical MP3 files.  <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/07/22/spotify_vs_girl_talk_what_is_spotify_s_music_catalog_missing_.html">A year ago, Spotify was said to have 15 million tracks</a>, which means that you could store most of today's Spotify on that future Seagate drive.  Spotify is likely to grow even larger by 2016, but it probably won't grow as fast as the storage capacity of hard disks, so there will be some point in the not-too-distant future when you can place all of its holdings on a single hard disk: Spotify in a box.
</p><p>
Obviously, few people will choose to do that, but storing your favorite million songs will not only be realistic, it will be cheap -- and even portable.  Provided the transfer rate to and from such disks also keeps up with the growth in capacities -- an indispensable technological requirement, otherwise they become impossible to use -- this means that people will be able to move around huge collections of music, without ever touching an Internet connection.  That makes all those three-strikes plans moot, since you won't actually need your broadband line in order to swap files with friends.  You'll just plug in your portable hard drives to a common computer and exchange stuff directly (as probably already happens with today's terabyte-sized portable disks.)
</p><p>
In an ideal world, we would also see a kind of constant scaling of the intelligence of the recording industry, such that by 2016 it would finally accept that trying to stop sharing -- whether online or off -- is simply pointless.  Somehow, though, I think we'll just have to make do with the other variants of Moore's Law.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/07364719076/spotify-box-why-sharing-will-never-be-stopped.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>jukebox-of-alexandria</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120525/07364719076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:50:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is It Really Fair To Say That Red Hat Is The First Billion Dollar Open Source Company?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120328/23192318283/is-it-really-fair-to-say-that-red-hat-is-first-billion-dollar-open-source-company.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120328/23192318283/is-it-really-fair-to-say-that-red-hat-is-first-billion-dollar-open-source-company.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nearly two years ago, we took part in a wider discussion over the question of why there was no <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100626/0032429967.shtml">billion dollar pure play open source</a> company.  Much of the discussion, not surprisingly, focused on Red Hat, seeing as it's the largest of the pure play open source companies, and some had been complaining that it had not yet reached $1 billion in revenue, even as proprietary software players were able to earn much more than that.  We highlighted, first, that a direct comparison didn't make any sense, because the business models were so different.  The very nature of a company like Red Hat is to <i>shrink</i> the costs one has to pay, such that the market is redefined.  Quoting Red Hat's CEO speaking to Glyn Moody:
<blockquote><i>
He said that he did think that Red Hat could get to $5 billion in due course, but that this entailed "replacing $50 billion of revenue" currently enjoyed by other computer companies. What he meant was that to attain that $5 billion of revenue Red Hat would have to displace software that currently costs $50 billion. Selling $50 billion-worth of software -- even if it only costs $5 billion -- is somewhat hard, which is why it will take a while to achieve. 
</i></blockquote>
And that's a key point.  The markets are very different.  But I think there was an even more important point later on in that discussion, which is that it's wrong to think of just "pure play" open source companies as the open source market.  It's really the equivalent of defining "the music industry" as solely "the number of CDs sold."  That doesn't paint the entire picture at all.  Because, as we've seen, as music has become more available (both in authorized and unauthorized means), it's built up the much wider "music industry" in massive ways -- jump-starting huge shifts in the industry.
<br /><br />
Similarly, the importance and impact of the "open source market" is not in the companies offering up open source software, but in the companies using open source software to offer amazing things to the world.  In other words, I'd argue that companies like IBM, Google and Facebook are clearly "billion dollar open source companies" (actually, much, much more than just a billion) -- because they all use open source software as the key component and key resource in building their business.  Just as other parts of the music business used free music to boost their revenue, companies that used open source software built massive new markets and grew their own revenue streams.
<br /><br />
Given that, I know there's a lot of folks talking about <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/red-hat-hits-a-billion-dollars-in-revenue-a-milestone-for-open-source.ars" target="_blank">Red Hat finally actually hitting that $1 billion revenue milestone</a> -- and it is a milestone worth noting.  However, I think it's wrong to suggest that Red Hat is therefore the first "billion dollar" open source company.  In fact, just as IBM, Facebook and Google really make their money by leveraging open source software to do (and sell) something else, much of Red Hat's revenue really comes in an ancillary manner to the software as well: from selling the service that goes with it.  It's great that Red Hat is doing well, and certainly it presents yet another useful data point to argue against those who argue there's no money to be made if your key "product" is free, but I think it's unfair and misleading to claim that it's the first billion dollar open source company.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120328/23192318283/is-it-really-fair-to-say-that-red-hat-is-first-billion-dollar-open-source-company.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120328/23192318283/is-it-really-fair-to-say-that-red-hat-is-first-billion-dollar-open-source-company.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120328/23192318283/is-it-really-fair-to-say-that-red-hat-is-first-billion-dollar-open-source-company.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>others-might-beg-to-differ</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120328/23192318283</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:22:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Has To Waste Money On 750 IBM Patents Just To Ward Off Other Patent Lawsuits</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/15320518214/facebook-has-to-waste-money-750-ibm-patents-just-to-ward-off-other-patent-lawsuits.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/15320518214/facebook-has-to-waste-money-750-ibm-patents-just-to-ward-off-other-patent-lawsuits.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been a pretty open secret for quite some time that Facebook is actively in the market to buy a bunch of patents, and now it's done its first big deal, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-22/facebook-is-said-to-buy-750-ibm-patents-to-boost-defenses" target="_blank">scoring 750 patents from IBM</a> to add to the 56 patents it currently has (some of which it purchased, and some of which it applied for).  There's been plenty of talk about people who don't really know much about patents about how Facebook "needs" more patents, and the ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/18274118084/delusions-grandeur-yahoo-officially-sues-facebook-laughably-argues-that-facebooks-entire-model-is-based-yahoo.shtml">Yahoo lawsuit</a> only increased the attention the issue is getting.  Plus, there are some investors who still -- for whatever reason -- think that the number of patents in a portfolio  are a reasonable proxy for innovation or the ability to control a market.  Of course, none of these patents will help Facebook against its most common legal foe: the patent troll.  They're really only useful either against other operating companies (to ward off patent nuclear war cross-suits) or if Facebook decides to become obnoxious like Yahoo and start suing others offensively.
<br /><br />
What this really shows is just how <i>broken</i> the patent system is.  Facebook basically just had to waste a large chunk of money on a bunch of patents that have nothing to do with innovation, which won't help Facebook provide a better product for its users and which will only serve to create more money for lawyers somewhere down the road.  That's not a healthy system.  That's not an efficient system, and it's not one that's good for innovation or economic growth.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/15320518214/facebook-has-to-waste-money-750-ibm-patents-just-to-ward-off-other-patent-lawsuits.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/15320518214/facebook-has-to-waste-money-750-ibm-patents-just-to-ward-off-other-patent-lawsuits.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/15320518214/facebook-has-to-waste-money-750-ibm-patents-just-to-ward-off-other-patent-lawsuits.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>play-the-game,-waste-money</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120322/15320518214</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Fresh Water On Demand</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1139528146/dailydirt-fresh-water-demand.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1139528146/dailydirt-fresh-water-demand.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Earth is literally covered in water, but 97% of that water is in salty oceans and not useful for drinking. In fact, only about 1% of the world's water is really usable by humans (because a lot of fresh water is frozen in glaciers or otherwise inconveniently located). Here are just a few links on the lengths people could go to in order to get drinkable water.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/ad-design-competition-seeks-to-raise-awareness-about-water-conservation/3882" href="http://bit.ly/wGH3Wa">The United Nations held a design competition to create ads that help raise awareness of water conservation efforts.</a> The winners will be picked in June. [<a href="http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/ad-design-competition-seeks-to-raise-awareness-about-water-conservation/3882">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-simulation-iceberg-drought-areas.html" href="http://bit.ly/ok8UzK">A team of software engineers created a simulation that concludes it's possible to tow an iceberg from the waters around Newfoundland to the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa.</a> The expense of actually doing this, however, has not been shown to be worthwhile by anyone yet. [<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-simulation-iceberg-drought-areas.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/23/how-ibms-chip-technology-might-lead-to-better-water-filtration-video/" href="http://bit.ly/zXlB3d">IBM's Almaden Research Center is developing new water filtration membranes for purification processes -- which could be useful for desalination and other water reclamation.</a> The trick is getting water purified without using a lot of energy to do so.... [<a href="http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/23/how-ibms-chip-technology-might-lead-to-better-water-filtration-video/">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://m.inhabitat.com/man-arrested-for-stealing-a-glacier-to-make-designer-ice-cubes/" href="http://bit.ly/wHID9B">A guy from Chile was arrested for stealing a 5-ton piece of a glacier -- that he was going to sell on the black market for making designer ice cubes.</a> Glacier ice just tastes way better than the ice that comes out of a plastic tray because it's been aged for millions of years. [<a href="http://m.inhabitat.com/man-arrested-for-stealing-a-glacier-to-make-designer-ice-cubes/">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1139528146/dailydirt-fresh-water-demand.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1139528146/dailydirt-fresh-water-demand.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100212/1139528146/dailydirt-fresh-water-demand.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100212/1139528146</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Ads Gone Wild</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11485211501/dailydirt-ads-gone-wild.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11485211501/dailydirt-ads-gone-wild.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Advertising is a fascinating topic. When ads are done well, the content is usually good enough to stand alone without trying to market a product. Who wouldn't want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony? But it's not easy to create really great and memorable ads. Maybe it's an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP5f-fsHrs">ancient Chinese secret</a>, huh?
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-theory-explains-what" href="http://bit.ly/xNFJ3B">The science of a viral ad campaign is narrowing down the variables to factors like: congruency, emotive strength, network involvement and paired meme synergy.</a> It's not just about combining a cute cat with a piano anymore. [<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-theory-explains-what">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/multimedia/schell-dice.shtml" href="http://bit.ly/Ack6Sz">Prof Jesse Schell envisions a future where video games would encourage consumers to buy stuff and behave a certain way.</a> Would you like to play a game? <s>Thermonuclear War</s> Endless consumption. [<a href="http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/multimedia/schell-dice.shtml">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/12/14/the-real-story-behind-apples-think-different-campaign/" href="http://onforb.es/y2XWpz">Apple's Think Different campaign has a slightly different genesis story than the one from the Steve Jobs biography.</a> Apparently, the slogan was related to "Think IBM" and was conceived by Craig Tanimoto...? [<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/12/14/the-real-story-behind-apples-think-different-campaign/">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting advertising-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:448" href="http://bit.ly/osqk34">check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:481">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 


By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11485211501/dailydirt-ads-gone-wild.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11485211501/dailydirt-ads-gone-wild.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11485211501/dailydirt-ads-gone-wild.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101020/11485211501</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Creating Virtual And Artificial Brains</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100505/1758359314/dailydirt-creating-virtual-artificial-brains.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100505/1758359314/dailydirt-creating-virtual-artificial-brains.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We're a long way away from creating an artificial intelligence from scratch that can perform general tasks. But plenty of researchers are learning some interesting things about AI while they build massively parallel computers or grow microbrains from little clumps of cells. Here are just a few projects where some synthetic brains are being hand-built by people.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217840/Million-ARM-cores-brain-simulator" href="http://bit.ly/vO6uFi">One *million* [/Dr. Evil voice] ARM processor cores are being hooked together to create a parallel computer called SpiNNaker that will try to simulate the human brain.</a> Given that the human brain has about 100 billion neurons with 1,000 trillion connections between them all, this project is less than 1% of the way towards a full brain simulation. [<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217840/Million-ARM-cores-brain-simulator">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://news.discovery.com/tech/petri-dish-brain-has-short-term-memory-110602.html" href="http://bit.ly/sT7CUH">Growing a brain in a petri dish from rat neurons might be an interesting approach to building a brain <i>de novo</i>.</a> So far, researchers have created a network of about 60 rat neurons which seem to be able to sustain activity for about 12 seconds. [<a href="http://news.discovery.com/tech/petri-dish-brain-has-short-term-memory-110602.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/09/cognitive-computing-when-computers-become-brains/" href="http://onforb.es/tRe9A1">Folks from IBM are working on cognitive computing like the Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE) project with some DARPA funding to re-create a billion artificial neurons.</a> Trying to beat the power efficiency of the human brain isn't an easy task. [<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/09/cognitive-computing-when-computers-become-brains/">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting bot-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29" href="http://bit.ly/h0iGmR">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul>

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100505/1758359314/dailydirt-creating-virtual-artificial-brains.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100505/1758359314/dailydirt-creating-virtual-artificial-brains.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100505/1758359314/dailydirt-creating-virtual-artificial-brains.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100505/1758359314</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Big Tech Companies Funding University Research Labs... Only If They Promise To Open Source The Results</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The state of universities and intellectual property is pretty messy these days.  Thanks to the screwed up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/16073410866.shtml">Bayh-Dole</a> law, many universities feel (wrongly) compelled to patent the research that they produce.  This generally goes against their basic charters of sharing the knowledge that they create.  It's also not very profitable.  Only a small handful of universities have been able to make money off of patents.  Most have lost a ton of money, setting up expensive tech transfer offices that don't return a dime.
<br /><br />
However, in an interesting twist (pointed out by <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/113541301370232832" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a>), it appears that a variety of big tech companies, including Intel, HP and IBM, are now <a href="http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/09/12/intel-to-universities-no-patents-please-just-open-source/" target="_blank">funding research centers on the condition that they open source anything that comes out of them</a>.
<br /><br />
Think about that for a second.  These institutions of learning, who for decades have been built on education and sharing knowledge, want to lock up ideas.  And the private companies, who are more commonly associated with trying to lock up proprietary information, are encouraging greater openness and sharing.  That, alone, should show you just how screwed up our patent system is today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>kinda-backwards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110913/03255415926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Wacky Inventions and Inventors...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/15305915070/dailydirt-wacky-inventions-inventors.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/15305915070/dailydirt-wacky-inventions-inventors.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Inventions aim to improve anything and everything. So there are a lot of pretty trivial inventions out there, but every so often there are some really cool things, too. Here are just a few quick links about inventions and inventors.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlHGhKHIdM" href="http://bit.ly/nQpT0j">This device has to be seen to be believed -- and even after watching it, there's some doubt that it isn't some kind of video editing trick.</a> Don't cry over spilled ketchup... [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlHGhKHIdM">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://bigthink.com/ideas/25586?" href="http://bit.ly/q1UY03">Stephen Wolfram wonders if machines can discover axioms or invent interesting mathematical conjectures.</a> Sounds like someone wants to replace an infinite array of monkeys with a server farm. [<a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/25586?">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/scientists-play-worlds-oldest-co.html" href="http://bit.ly/nhN01b">One of the first voice recordings for sale to the public was a 12-second clip of a woman singing 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little star' for a toy doll.</a> Thomas Edison would probably be impressed that the 123-year-old recording could be played using modern optical scanning techniques that don't physically touch the metal cylinder that the soundprint is etched into. [<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/scientists-play-worlds-oldest-co.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://news.discovery.com/tech/andy-stanford-clark-inventor.html" href="http://bit.ly/nhUMUT">IBM has named a group of employees 'Master Inventors' -- and one of them admits he usually helps invent pretty obscure things.</a> It seems a bit presumptuous to call someone (other than Necessity?) a 'master' of invention. [<a href="http://news.discovery.com/tech/andy-stanford-clark-inventor.html">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting tech-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:Technology" href="http://bit.ly/ewIrx5">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:Technology">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 


By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/15305915070/dailydirt-wacky-inventions-inventors.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/15305915070/dailydirt-wacky-inventions-inventors.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/15305915070/dailydirt-wacky-inventions-inventors.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110712/15305915070</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of talk about "defensive" patents lately, as many companies in the tech industry try to acquire patents and claim they're only doing so for "defensive" purposes -- to act as a kind of deterrent to a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040804/0254215.shtml">patent nuclear war</a>.  Of course, this only works against other companies that produce stuff.  Patent trolls are immune to defensive patents, since they don't <i>do</i> anything, and thus don't infringe on any patent (though, both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml">Halliburton</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml">IBM</a> have tried to patent patent trolling...).
<br /><br />
We've described in the past some of the problems with thinking patents are okay if they're only used for defensive purposes.  For example, while they may start out that way, they can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/11263315224/oracle-deletes-jonathan-schwartzs-old-blog-which-excitedly-celebrated-googles-use-java-android.shtml">later be used offensively</a>, which happens much more frequently than you might think.
<br /><br />
But Julian Sanchez brings up a key point in this discussion, which is that a <a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/07/28/good-defensive-patents-are-bad-patents/" target="_blank">good defensive patent, <i>by definition</i> is a bad patent</a>.  That's because the only way a defensive patent matters is if there's some likelihood that lots of other companies would infringe on it.  As Sanchez explains:
<blockquote><i>
This only works, however, if other companies are almost certain to have independently come up with the same idea. A patent that is truly so original that somebody else wouldn&rsquo;t arrive at the same solution by applying normal engineering skill is useless  as a defensive patent. You can&rsquo;t threaten someone with a countersuit if your idea is so brilliant that your opponents&mdash;because they didn&rsquo;t think of it&mdash;haven&rsquo;t incorporated it in their technology. The ideal defensive patent, by contrast, is the most obvious one you can get the U.S. Patent Office to sign off on&mdash;one that competitors are likely to unwittingly &ldquo;infringe,&rdquo; not realizing they&rsquo;ve made themselves vulnerable to legal counterattack, because it&rsquo;s simply the solution a good, smart engineer trying to solve a particular problem would naturally come up with.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, that describes a ton of patents out there.  So broad and so obvious that tons of companies infringe.  And those are, clearly, the worst, most economically damaging patents around.  So, those who are seeking the best "defensive" patents are basically seeking the worst patents the USPTO has granted...
<br /><br />
Oh, and should we mention now that Google just <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-29/google-buys-inventions-from-ibm-as-it-aims-to-build-patent-hoard.html" target="_blank">bought a bunch of patents from IBM</a> for "defensive" purposes?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ending-the-myth-of-defensive-patents</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110729/03340615311</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:44:01 PST</pubDate>
<title>Finally Found: A Human That Can Beat Watson... And It Turns Out To Be Rep. Rush Holt</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While IBM's Watson obviously got a ton of attention for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml">winning</a> its big national TV challenge against two Jeopardy stars, apparently, IBM is taking the Jeopardy playing machine on tour, with a key stop being Congress.  It got to play against a group of our elected officials... <a href="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2011/03/watson-no-match-for-holt.php" target="_blank">and one of them actually beat Watson</a>.  Say hello to Rep. Rush Holt -- who was a bit of a ringer, since he's actually a five-time Jeopardy champion.  Holt apparently outscored Watson $8,600 to $6,200, though all the other Congressional Reps who went up against Watson were unable to master the computer.  I guess this means that we should make Rep. Holt our new leader when the machines come to try to enslave us.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bow-down-to-the-superior-mind</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110302/02425613325</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/11093713153/did-watson-succeed-jeopardy-infringing-copyrights.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/11093713153/did-watson-succeed-jeopardy-infringing-copyrights.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ An anonymous tipster points us to a really interesting comment by Peter Hirtle on a Laboratorium.net post discussing Watson, the Jeopardy-playing computer, where he <a href="http://laboratorium.net/archive/2010/11/17/gbs_open_thread#comment-68987" target="_blank">asks whether or not Watson infringes on copyrights</a>:
<blockquote><i>
From <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/ibm-watson-jeopardy/" rel="nofollow"><em>IBM&rsquo;s Watson Supercomputer Wins Practice Jeopardy Round</em></a> in <em> Wired Magazine</em>: "Researchers scanned some 200 million pages of content -- or the equivalent of about one million books -- into the system, including books, movie scripts and entire encyclopedias."
<br><br>
It seems unlikely that IBM got permission to scan one million books.  Can we expect soon a lawsuit from the Author's Guild against IBM and the producers of Jeopardy! (which, after all, is profiting from this scanning)?
</i></blockquote>
This is a really good point and (once again) highlights the ridiculousness of copyright in certain circumstances.  Of course, your viewpoint on this may depend heavily on whether or not you believe Google's book scanning infringed on copyright (I don't).  But, for those who do, do you believe that IBM's scanning of books does infringe?  Technically, it's the same basic process.  In fact, you could argue that with Watson it's much more involved, because Watson then actually made use of the actual data to a much greater extent than Google did with Google books.
<br><br>
But, really, a bigger point is how this highlights one of the oddities of copyright.  If you read something and retain it in your brain, is that infringement?  Most people say no, of course.  Now, if a computer "reads" something and retains it in memory is that infringement?  Well, that's a bit more borderline according to many.  So take it a step further and as we reach the point that people can augment their wetware brains with computer brains... when do we hit a copyright infringement issue?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/11093713153/did-watson-succeed-jeopardy-infringing-copyrights.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/11093713153/did-watson-succeed-jeopardy-infringing-copyrights.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/11093713153/did-watson-succeed-jeopardy-infringing-copyrights.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-questions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110217/11093713153</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Add Jeopardy! To The List Of Games That AI Is Better At Than You....</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Today is the final game of Jeopardy! where the IBM supercomputer Watson plays against two of the best human players to ever compete on the show.  Folks on the East Coast already know the outcome by now, so feel free to ruin the suspense in the comments below for those of us in later time zones.  But whatever the outcome, Watson's performance has been pretty interesting to watch.  And let's hope these supercomputers don't start playing thermonuclear war any time soon. In the meantime, here are some links on AI beating humans at other games and tests.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_-_Kasparov,_1996,_Game_1" href="http://bit.ly/ggkwRQ">Deep Blue won its first game of chess against Garry Kasparov in 1996.</a>  The computer didn't win the match that year, but it won the re-match in 1997. [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_-_Kasparov,_1996,_Game_1">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/project/" href="http://bit.ly/hbMduC">Checkers was declared "solved" in 2007 by the Chinook project.</a>  Chinook was actually stronger than any human player by 1996, but it took a few more years for Chinook to realize checkers was a futile game (like tic-tac-toe) and retire. [<a href="http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/project/">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(poker_bot)" href="http://bit.ly/emhD9p">A few years ago, the Polaris poker bot beat a few professionals at Texas hold'em.</a>  So be careful playing poker online... [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(poker_bot)">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1YE2wQ/www.longbets.org/1" href="http://bit.ly/hKDwzD">The famous long bet between Mitchell Kapor and Ray Kurzweil has $20,000 riding on the question of whether or not AI will pass a Turing test by 2029.</a>  The bet started in 2002, and Kapor even suggested back then that a machine might win at a Jeopardy! game show. [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1YE2wQ/www.longbets.org/1">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more interesting stuff on artificial intelligence, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29" href="http://bit.ly/h0iGmR">check out what the robots at StumbleUpon suggest.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/13575213130/dailydirt-add-jeopardy-to-list-games-that-ai-is-better-than-you.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110216/13575213130</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>First Test Of Computer Jeopardy Player Goes Well; Watson Beats Mere Humans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14193812659/first-test-computer-jeopardy-player-goes-well-watson-beats-mere-humans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14193812659/first-test-computer-jeopardy-player-goes-well-watson-beats-mere-humans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we wrote that the IBM computing project Watson was ready to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/itinnovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml">take on real Jeopardy contestants in February of this year (just a few years after the project </a><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0021364654.shtml">first came to life</a>).  While the big test isn't until Valentine's Day, apparently they had a dry run, and things are looking pretty good for Watson, who <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20028420-76.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">beat Jeopardy champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter</a>.  It wasn't a complete domination.  Apparently Watson just narrowly edged out Jennings, though Rutter couldn't keep up.  Of course, between now and the real test, Watson can be tweaked.  Jennings' and Rutters' brains are pretty much set, and I'd imagine that their ability to cram more useless trivia in their brains is outmatched by Watson.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14193812659/first-test-computer-jeopardy-player-goes-well-watson-beats-mere-humans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14193812659/first-test-computer-jeopardy-player-goes-well-watson-beats-mere-humans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14193812659/first-test-computer-jeopardy-player-goes-well-watson-beats-mere-humans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>show-off</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110113/14193812659</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:31:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>IBM Files For Patent On Patent Trolling, But It May Be Too Late</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few folks have been submitting this story from Conceivably Tech about how IBM is <a href="http://www.conceivablytech.com/4823/business/the-ultimate-patent-troll-patent-get-sued-when-you-file-a-patent/" target="_blank">applying for a patent that appears to cover some aspect of patent trolling</a>.  The patent application (<a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;co1=AND&#038;d=PG01&#038;s1=20100332285.PGNR.&#038;OS=DN/20100332285RS=DN/20100332285" target="_blank">20100332285</a>), which was published just before the end of the year seeks to cover a "computerized system for an intellectual property (IP) framework" which includes what appear to be patent troll-style moves -- such as monitoring the market to find "licensing" opportunities.
<br /><br />
Of course, IBM might be a bit late to the game.  As we noted over two years ago, it looked like Halliburton (yes, Halliburton) was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml">applying for a patent on patent trolling</a> -- and that patent was a lot more explicit.  So perhaps IBM may find that there's a fair amount of prior art to deal with...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-may-be-too-late.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>different-methods-of-trolling?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110102/15363912492</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:58:25 PST</pubDate>
<title>IBM's Jeopardy Answering Computer Apparently Ready To Compete For Real</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In April of 2009, we wrote about how IBM was working on a new computer, called Watson, that would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0021364654.shtml">be able to compete on the game show Jeopardy</a>.  It was no chess playing computer, but it was still an interesting project.  Apparently, it's advanced enough that it's scheduled <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/ibm-computer-to-play-humans-on-jeopardy.html" target="_blank">for its first appearance on the show</a>, this upcoming February (Valentines Day -- so romantic), where it will take on two of the most successful Jeopardy contestants ever.  While it might seem simple -- you just have to load up the machine with a ton of trivia -- it's a bit more complicated than that, because the Jeopardy "clues," can be a bit tricky, often using "subtle meanings and riddles."  Apparently, those things have still been stumping Watson in testing.  The report notes: "Watson had some trouble recognizing double meanings and sometimes confused fiction as fact."  In other words, this actually is an attempt to push computer natural language recognition tools forward.
<center>
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1c7s7-3fXI?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_1c7s7-3fXI?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20101216/03245912301/ibms-jeopardy-answering-computer-apparently-ready-to-compete-real.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>suck-it,-trebeck</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101216/03245912301</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:40:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>IBM Patents Dividing The Number 60 By Your Car's Speed</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04302111112/ibm-patents-dividing-the-number-60-by-your-car-s-speed.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04302111112/ibm-patents-dividing-the-number-60-by-your-car-s-speed.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>""A billboard," IBM explains to the USPTO in its newly granted patent for <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,800,514">Determining Billboard Refresh Rate Based on Traffic Flow</a>, "is a large outdoor advertisement." Guess you have to pad your writing a bit when a cornerstone of <a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5012739628_2ff3cbd044_b.jpg">your 'invention'</a> is dividing the number 60 by the speed of a car (in mph). To be fair, Big Blue explains things this way in the patent: "A system for determining the refresh rate per minute of the dynamic billboard based on the traffic flow information, wherein the refresh rate is equal to 60 mph/V, wherein V is equal to an average velocity in miles per hour of vehicles passing the dynamic billboard. If the average velocity is 60 mph, the new refresh rate of the dynamic billboard is one refresh per minute (i.e., each advertisement is displayed for one minute), while if the average velocity is 10 mph, the new refresh rate of the dynamic billboard is six refreshes per minute (i.e., each advertisement is displayed for ten seconds)." Which begs a question: Will you see an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero">infinite number</a> of ads if traffic comes to a full stop?"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04302111112/ibm-patents-dividing-the-number-60-by-your-car-s-speed.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04302111112/ibm-patents-dividing-the-number-60-by-your-car-s-speed.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04302111112/ibm-patents-dividing-the-number-60-by-your-car-s-speed.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>divide-by-zero</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100922/04302111112</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:42:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cocoa Genome Released... But Is It Really In The Public Domain?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/00444911066/cocoa-genome-released-but-is-it-really-in-the-public-domain.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/00444911066/cocoa-genome-released-but-is-it-really-in-the-public-domain.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, a PR person working for Mars (makers of M&#038;Ms and such) sent me an email about how scientists from Mars along with the USDA and IBM (among others) had sequenced the cacao genome and that "the results of the research will be made available to the public with permanent access," at the accurately named <a href="http://www.cacaogenomedb.org/" target="_blank">Cacao Genome Database</a>.  Sounded interesting, but it was a busy week, and I wasn't able to spend much time digging into it.  I was intrigued, however, by the claim in the press release that the team had <a href="http://www.mars.com/global/news-and-media/press-releases/news-releases.aspx?SiteId=94&#038;Id=2460" target="_blank">"released the preliminary findings of their breakthrough cacao genome sequence and <b>made it available in the public domain</b>"</a>.  It's so rare to hear of some big companies doing research and release it into the public domain, that it, alone, seemed newsworthy, and something I wanted to explore.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, before I even got the chance to, I saw <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody/statuses/24874954717" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> point me to <a href="http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/2010/09/mars-inc-cacao-genome-database-claims.html" target="_blank">Glen Newton's analysis of the claims of public domain and open access for the data</a>, only to discover it's not true.  While they are making the data available, it's hardly public domain.  You have to agree to a license that has some serious restrictions in it (and some contradictions).  For example, it lists out the ways you can use it -- and leaves out commercial use.  Real public domain doesn't care (and doesn't require a license).
<br /><br />
Then there's this:
<blockquote><i>
The User shall not transfer the information referred to in this agreement, or any copy of them, to a third party without obtaining written authorization from the Providers which will only be provided subject to the third party user entering into this same IAA.
</i></blockquote>
I'm kind of wondering if this is just boilerplate that the lawyers threw into this not understanding what public domain means.  But it seems pretty silly to (a) create a license for supposedly public domain data which (b) doesn't allow you to tell anyone about what's in the license!
<br /><br />
There is a nice bit in the "license" where it says you can't use the data in a patent application, but one would hope that the data being in the public domain would exclude it from being used in a limited fashion elsewhere anyway (sans license agreement).  Separately, someone in the comments notes that the original license agreement said that if you used the data, you couldn't publish any articles about your findings until some period in the future -- but that clause was later removed (though, it's unclear if those who signed in prior to the removal still need to live by that).
<br /><br />
However, I do have a pretty serious question: is this data in the public domain?  Last year, we pointed out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml">how difficult it is to put something into the public domain</a>.  Here, we have a case where Mars, the main company behind the research, has put out a press release, which clearly states:
<blockquote><i>
Today, Mars, Incorporated, the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), and IBM released the preliminary findings of their breakthrough cacao genome sequence and made it available in the public domain.
</i></blockquote>
Thus, one could easily read that and believe these findings are public domain.  But, then, when you go to the actual site, it claims all sorts of license restrictions.  So, if someone goes and copies all the data and puts it on their own site, is that legal?  It certainly looks like the company put the info into the public domain via the press release, and once something is in the public domain, you can't reverse that (well, unless you're the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml">10th Circuit appeals court</a>).  So, it certainly looks like someone could make the argument that the license Mars is trying to put on this data is meaningless.  The company has already declared it in the public domain, and thus, no license applies.  But, here's where the lack of any clear rules for how you officially make something public domain come into play.  Would Mars claim that the press release "misrepresented" the company's position?
<br /><br />
I don't mean to come down too hard on Mars.  It's actually quite <i>nice</i> that a company would do such research and try to make it "open" and try to prevent it from being locked up in patents.  I really do commend such actions, and don't wish to negate that point.  But, I think the public domain is a really important thing, and if a company wants to put content into the public domain, they should be clear about what's really in the public domain.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/00444911066/cocoa-genome-released-but-is-it-really-in-the-public-domain.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/00444911066/cocoa-genome-released-but-is-it-really-in-the-public-domain.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/00444911066/cocoa-genome-released-but-is-it-really-in-the-public-domain.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-public-domain-has-no-restrictions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100919/00444911066</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:15:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>IBM Patents Guessing How Many Kids Are On A School Bus</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10162910925.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10162910925.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>"Self-described patent reformer IBM was awarded a patent Tuesday for <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,788,063">Utilizing Gross Vehicle Weight to Determine Passenger Numbers</a>. And yes, the 'invention' of five IBMers is what you think it is - from the Abstract: 'A total weight of passengers on the vehicle is divided by an estimated weight of each of the passengers to estimate how many passengers are on the vehicle.' First-graders everywhere will no doubt rejoice to learn that the elusive <a href="http://quest.carnegiefoundation.org/~mellinger/lampkin/problemvardecrease.htm">how-many-kids-are-on-the-school-bus problem</a> has finally been solved!"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10162910925.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10162910925.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/10162910925.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>jellybeans-in-a-jar-patent-is-next</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100907/10162910925</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>