Present day postulations

Vampires - the dos and don'ts

2012-05-13T14:20:00.000+10:00

Background

In a society that seems to be obsessed by vampires and stories about vampires, it becomes increasingly important to separate the myth from the... well - to make clear to the reader what they should and shouldn't trust in vampire lore.

Their strengths

Yes, vampires have a few key things over humanity, and these need to be spelt out to save the reader from relying upon apocryphal stories and anecdote when facing their own death (or worse) at the teeth of a vampire. Listed below are all of those vampiric advantages you may have heard of, as well as details about whether they can be reliably believed.

Superhuman strength. You've heard it said that vampires possess superhuman strength. Stephen King, one of modern documenters of vampiric habit, made clear in his tale of 'Salem's Lot[1] that vampires are incredibly strong. This has been supported by other writers on the subject, including Anne Rice on the occasion that she interviewed a vampire[2]. Do not attempt to resist a vampire by strength alone, you will fail.
Cunning and intelligence. In many ways the intelligence of vampires has been overstated. While King made clear that his vampire had learned cunning from a long lifetime of survival, Rice detailed the not-so-lucky: the vampires that were barely human and had lost much of their intelligence. Bram Stoker’s tale[3], while clearly relying on second- and third-hand accounts, leans towards a high degree of intelligence in his subject but this may be heightened by the environment in which Stoker wrote – 19^th century Ireland tended towards crediting a wide range of supernatural phenomena and bestowing upon them extraordinary powers.
Difficulty of destruction. I choose the word destruction rather than death, as vampires are already considered to be undead and thus on the “other side” of death. All reasonable accounts indicate that vampires are extremely difficult to kill. They can be discommoded, certainly. A vampire whose limbs have been removed can be considered largely ‘armless. But that vampire will remain in a kind of life until totally robbed of its essence, as documented below.
Night vision. Again, this is a belief that is more due to allegory than fact. Vampires do not have superhuman night vision. However, they do spend their time (not their “lives”, as they are undead) in the dark and so their eyes tend to develop some acuity at night. But a vampire who has been turned from a human with poor eyesight will not magically overcome that defect.
Abnormal patience. To be honest, I’m not sure why this belief has come into existence. Clearly some people think that with an extraordinarily long life vampires will develop patience to match. Documentary evidence makes clear that this is not the case. Were vampires patient, they would simply wait in hiding for human curiosity to wane. The events that so often bring down their destruction could be avoided entirely. Fortunately for humanity, the impatience of vampires often proves ruinous.
A mesmeric personality. Unfortunately for humanity, it is exceedingly difficult to say no to a vampire. Those few who have done so and survived generally tell of being captivated by the vampire’s eyes, but somehow being distracted and noticing less alluring aspects of the creature of the night. Vampires are indeed hypnotically persuasive (again, Stephen King makes this clear), but if your mind is distracted from them in any way you are likely to be able to identify problems with the scene. These include seeing how large the polite gentleman/lady’s teeth are, questioning why you should feel so happy about letting a stranger into your house at 2am, or realising that you are late for an appointment. Such distractions are (fortunately) the bane of a vampire’s existence. It should also be noted that the vampiric personality is only fully effective in a one-to-one situation. Vampires attempting to charm someone with a friend appear to find the task of focussing on both exceedingly difficult, and generally fail.

Weaknesses of a vampire

As in their strengths, vampires have varying degrees of weakness. Again, I seek to make clear that not all of the weaknesses listed here are real weaknesses – as I list perceived weaknesses I will make clear which can be relied upon.

1. A lust for the virtuous maiden. Somehow there has arisen a belief that every vampire lusts for virgins, and any other blood is second rate. I think this has come from a connoisseurs’ club, which I understand was in operation early last century. My sources advise that vampires in this club pursued the least plausible of sources to gain their meal. This led them to seek virgins of both the male and female persuasion, as the most difficult to procure. There does not seem to be any evidence that the blood procured from virgins is of better quality, and I understand that the club lost members steadily in the 1970s with the rise of the “nerd” as the primary source of virgin blood.

2. An asexual (un)life. No sex please, we’re vampires is in fact true. The trouble for vampires is several-fold. Firstly, in surrendering their lives they also surrendered hormonal drives. A vampire lusts for nothing but his or her meal. Secondly, you’re never going to get a rise out of a vampire. His implement of affection just doesn’t get the blood supply upon which it would rely in such a moment. However, vampires do use sexual attraction to lure targets. The vampire does possess a mesmeric personality,

3. Weak flesh. This is something that Quentin Tarantino documented in his tale of the Mexican clique, From Dusk till Dawn[4]. In that movie, vampires were fortuitously easy to dismember, as they seemed only half-baked. Unfortunately, I think only Tarantino can tell us where he heard of this, as there appears to be no other source that documents this vampiric abnormality.

4. Religion and religious symbols. As the Church has sought to paint vampires as creatures of the devil, so it has also claimed the ability to protect against them. Unfortunately, those who rely on religious symbols for their salvation tend to lose in any struggle with a vampire. I am aware that the literature disagrees with this assessment, but the word on the street is that vampires have no special disgust for religion and its icons.

5. Garlic. Many consider garlic to be a strong protection against vampires, but again the literature is against this belief. I understand it arose in the centuries BCE (before common era), when garlic was seen as a cure-all. This belief may also have been encouraged by “garlic breath”, on the assumption that vampires, as well-dressed and mannered individuals, would not like to have the bad breath resulting from dining on someone who had ingested or was wearing garlic. While garlic does have some beneficial effects on one’s health, repelling vampires is not one of them.

6. Sunlight. This is a vampire’s biggest bugbear – they do burn very easily and very fast. I understand that vampires regularly make attempts to foil the effects of sunlight on them, but sunscreens (even with high SPF factors) have so far failed to assist. Sunlight is the only reason vampire numbers are not of plague proportions.

To destroy a vampire

Remember, you are not killing a vampire. It is already undead, all you can do to it is make sure it can no longer cause harm.

Many methods have been suggested for killing vampires, but the most common theme is the most correct. The vampire’s heart must be destroyed. Other than that, additional details are optional. A stake through the heart is fine. So is a sword, assuming it is not just a rapier. It is important to note that a hole in the heart does not constitute total destruction. So rapiers, and bullets, are out of the question. If you have the opportunity to open the vampire’s chest and remove its heart, that will suffice. Unfortunately, most methods for heart destruction tend to be at close range and it is extremely dangerous to be close to an angry vampire. (Why angry? Well, wouldn’t you be somewhat peeved if someone proposed to rip your heart out of your chest?) If you are going to attempt to kill a vampire, bring friends and preferably a chainsaw: messy but effective both in offence and defence.

The other alternative for vampire destruction is sunlight. This is the preferred method, as you may be able to expose a vampire to sunlight without exposing yourself to close-quarters combat. If all else fails, demolish the house in which a vampire resides, then remove the lid from their coffin. This is possibly the most effective means of vampire disposal.

What if it comes back?

If you have destroyed the heart or exposed the vampire to sunlight (noting that it must be fully exposed for an adequate period – you’ll know it’s enough when you have a pile of ashes) it will not come back. But it may have friends. So – be careful. And good luck.

Oh, and one last thing. Turning into bats? Utter nonsense, just a link with the habit that the vampire bat has of sucking blood.

[1] ‘Salem’s Lot – Stephen King, 1975

[2] Interview with the vampire – Anne Rice, 1973

[3] Dracula – Bram Stoker, 1897

[4] From Dusk till Dawn – movie based on story by Quentin Tarantino, 1996

The personal genome

2012-05-13T14:09:00.000+10:00

Introduction

I should point out at the start that this article is by someone who doesn’t know anywhere near enough about the science of genetics, but who can see future possibilities.

My March 2012 edition of Popular Science[1] tells me that the cost of producing a human genome (individual's genetic record) is plummeting.

The first effort to sequence a single human genome cost $3 billion. By 2011, the cost was $5,000, and the sequencing took a few weeks. And in January 2012 a new process was announced that would cost $1,000 and sequence a human genome in two hours.

At this rate, we will soon reach a point where it will be relatively inexpensive to sequence a human genome - say, $100. What then?

What then?

Once the cost of sequencing an individual's genetic code (or DNA) hits $100, the price barrier for most of us will be all but gone. There's no reason not to get your sequence. But there still needs to be some value that it will provide to the individual.

It's important at this point to note that the human genome is pretty big – one individual's record takes up 3.2gb of storage^[2].

So - we have this 3gb of data, what do we do with it?

I propose a future whereby one can book into the genetic testing lab for a review. They'll do the sequencing, and provide it to you on a USB key – along with a bit of basic software and a report. They can also, at your request, provide the same information to your doctor – who is likely to find it very handy.

Okay, so we have lots of data

The genome by itself doesn't really tell you much. It's a bunch of Gs, As, Ts and Cs (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine and Cytosine[3]). But it can tell us about a person’s genetic conditions and predispositions – if we understand the code.

At the moment science has interpreted bits of the human genome. We know that certain parts of the human make-up are hereditary, and we know that certain parts of the human genome have an influence on specific conditions. Work is continuing to match x part of the genome to y condition – and this is where an individual’s genetic sequence becomes useful.

The map

As I’ve already suggested, in the future you’ll pay $100 for a copy of your genetic sequence and a report. Now it’s time to expand on that.

The report will be an explanation of your sequence, based on current scientific knowledge. If we know that a particular combination leads to blue eyes, then the report will say “sequence c is responsible for blue eyes in your case”. Or more importantly, “a study of your genome shows that you possess the following markers. These have been found to correspond with a 63% increased risk of heart attack in individuals aged between 37 and 44”.

The latter information would tell you something, but would also tell your doctor how they might go about addressing a risk that they did not previously know about.

All this is fine – to a point. The problem, though, is that we still don’t know anywhere near enough about the human genetic code. We don’t, for instance, know enough to make that second statement. So why would anyone bother getting a report that’s going to be out-dated in a month by new medical discoveries?

The subscription

There is a well-used business model already in existence that serves to solve this problem of information becoming obsolete very quickly – computer virus software.

An anti-virus program does its job in part by checking what’s on your computer against a list of known viruses. Of course, people write new computer viruses all the time, so that list needs to be updated regularly – generally weekly.

In the case of human genetics, science advances by leaps and bounds. But most of those will only matter to scholars – doctors and other medical professionals. The rest of us would only need updated information once a month or once a year (with the doctor calling us in if something urgent does show up).

The model

I propose a three part model.

Data (genome)

This is simply an individual’s genetic sequence. You are you, now and forever.

Translator (what bits of the genome = what medical information)

This is the bit that requires regular updates. It says “if section 176359 of the genome contains GGTCCA then the individual will have pink eyes”. Or some such. It needs regular updates to keep up with current medical knowledge.

There is a second, and optional, part of the translator. This part will say “if person with genome A breeds with person who has genome B, their offspring will have the following chance of Downs Syndrome”. Or similar information matching two peoples’ genetic codes and predicting possible outcomes of their breeding.

Software (personal reporter)

Finally, we have the bit that brings it all together. A software program that can match the genome to the medical information, and bring updated medical information through the interwebs from the company with which you’re subscribed. Oh, and prompt you to pay your annual fees.

The software will also, at some point in the future, have to decide what you really care about. When we do know all there is to know about the human genome, it’s just too much for an individual to read. Who cares that page 3,754 of your genetic report tells you which part of your genome determined that you would have black hair?

Finally, the software will tell your doctor, at the beginning of each visit, what updated information it holds about you.

Conclusion

There we have it – my proposal for the future of personal genetics. How we will all be able to know more about ourselves, and assist our doctors in treating us.

If you want to licence this model, please feel free to contact me and we can discuss appropriate fees.

If you would like to tell me all the bits of this article that I’ve got wrong, please use the comments section.

[1] Popular Science, March 2012, pages 24 and 26 (Zinio edition)

[2] Wikipedia entry Genome, accessed 13 May 2012, under the heading “Genome Size”

[3]The Free Dictionary entry GATC, accessed 13 May 2012

A new Australian Constitutional Monarchy

2012-04-29T10:51:00.001+10:00

Introduction

Australia in the twenty-first century remains ruled, at the top, by the monarch of another country. The queen of England is our head of state. She is there to represent Australia to the world, to undertake the ceremonial roles of government on our behalf, to cheer our athletes on as they compete at the Olympics. Wait, what?

Yes, the queen of England is supposed to be cheering on the athletes of half a dozen different countries as they compete against each other. She does delegate some of that cheering to subordinate governors general, but she ultimately owns the right to be cheerleader (although I'm not completely certain anyone has described her as that before).

We need to fix this obvious conflict between our head of state's obligations to Australia and to her other countries (including England).

The debate

In the 1990s, the Australian government promised to hold a referendum into Australia's model of government. Should we remain a constitutional monarch with the British monarch as our head of state, or should we become a republic?

To pass, a referendum in Australia requires a majority vote in total, and a majority of voters in a majority of states (four out of six states).

The model put to the Australian people in 1999 was one whereby the parliament would appoint a president. While there was overall support for a republic, Australians do not trust their politicians and most certainly don't want to give them any more power than they currently hold. The vote failed.

The republican debate has since faded in importance (something which is no doubt gratifying to the prime minister who oversaw the referendum, John Howard, who remains a firm monarchist).

A new proposal

It is time to reignite the debate, but with a third way. I propose that Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, but with its own monarch.

We have seen the flaws that arise when politicians get involved in important debates. They will seek to centralise and control power. A political solution, where Australia has either a popularly elected or an appointed president (czar, emperor, big cheese, or other preferred term) will lead to a politician as head of state. We don't want or need another politician, we want someone to put on Australia's happy face for the world. We need a glad hander, someone who can smile and say nice things. Someone who'll occasionally put their foot in their mouth, and so be quintessentially Australian.

Accordingly, I propose a monarchy. This will not be hereditary, it will be passed down in much the same way as the Dalai Lama-hood is inherited.

The third way

Australia's head of state, for life, will be chosen by lot from a select group of candidates. The source pool will be living Australians who have captained the Australian test cricket team (men's or women's).

That is, we will have a head of state who represents how Australians like to see themselves. A sports person who has achieved the pinnacle of success. Someone who has already represented their country to the world. Someone who can present a public face for us all.

Of course, there will have to be limits. We don't want just any old person. They will not have been convicted of a criminal offence. They will not have been found guilty of a sporting offence, in particular of bringing the game into disrepute.

This is the kind of person we want representing us. Doug Walters. Or Greg Chappell. Maybe Brian Booth? Or how about Belinda Clark? Or Karen Rolton?

These are the people who can represent Australia to the world. They can cheer our sportspeople. They can sign international agreements. They can work with the federal government, and if necessary bring it to heel.

They will serve for life, as does any other monarch, except in the case of gross negligence or criminality. Upon the current head of state's death, the replacement will be chosen by lot, drawn from all living, retired, Australian test cricket captains.

I present to you the future of Australia, led by our king, or queen, of cricket.

An atheist’s Christmas

2011-12-25T12:45:00.000+11:00

Christmas is about the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. As an atheist, I have several issues with this and am affected in many different ways. I think it’s time to speak out with an atheistic perspective.

Celebration of a birthday

Well actually, even the most ardent Christian researcher will tell you that Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December. So what’s the real story here?

Early Christians had trouble making in-roads against other beliefs. Try as they might, they couldn’t stop people engaging in their traditions. Winter solstice means we throw a party, and Julius Caesar established December 25 as the date to celebrate. Before any alleged birth in 4 BCE (before common era). Similarly Easter is linked to the vernal equinox – when day and night are of the same length, and again a time that was celebrated long before the birth of Christianity.

As the son of a Baptist I was brought up to go to church every Sunday (along with many other belief-based practices). Even once I became my own person and was able to live a free from such dogma, my wife and I continued to attend church at Christmas and Easter to please my mother. We have since given this up, as it was only giving her false hope that we would return to her religion.

Exchange of presents

From the outside looking in, Christmas appears to be mainly focussed on rabid consumerism. So where does this come from? Again, the winter solstice was a time of gift giving. This has spun out of control in modern capitalist societies, where gifts are expected and economies are built around a large spike in sales at the end of December. This can be largely avoided. While one does not wish to spoil childhood, once members of our family turn 18 they no longer get gifts. This avoids people wasting money once a year on items that the recipient generally doesn’t value as much as the items cost (refer to Scroogenomics for a more detailed analysis of the economics of gift giving).

The family occasion/Christmas meal

This is again based on pre-Christian practices. In reality, while the meal is intended to bring families together they don’t necessarily belong together. Most people can attest to the stress of the Christmas meal, where family members and in-laws, many of whom don’t get on, spend several hours arguing.

My wife and I do acquiesce in attending Christmas meals. Yes, we’ll eat with our families if we get on with them (noting that my wife’s brother has been estranged from the rest of her family for several years, and so we don’t see his family). It is always an occasion that’s filled with stress.

Is getting together with family a good thing? It’s always important to remember that you can choose your friends but not your family, and that while they might be family you don’t have to like them. I like my family, and can cope with a meal or two with them each year. But that’s something that I choose to do – you should never feel forced into a relationship with family, especially in those families that have involved abuse.

Christmas at the office

Yes, I’m the “Scrooge”. I “Bah” and “Humbug” my way through the weeks leading up to Christmas. There is an awful amount of pressure to just conform and give in to the occasion, that people really don’t think much about. Do you really think it’s right to push a religious celebration onto me? Even if you’re celebrating it non-religiously, I am not interested in the decorations around the office or the incredibly annoying carols.

Yes, Christmas music is appalling. And the decorations are generally awful!

But you still take the public holiday

Well yes. Just like a German living in Australia will not turn up for work on Australia Day, I am forced by the fact that my office is closed not to attend work. It’s also part of most employment arrangements. Of course, if Christmas were abolished as a public holiday then everyone would work. I’m fine with that.

So what do you really want from Christmas?

Just some basics:

Get rid of the awful music (and the sloppy sentimentality)
Don’t pretend it’s a religious celebration when most people who’re celebrating are not Christians
Accept that some of us don’t want to have Christmas pushed down our throats. If you’re a non-Muslim in an Islamic country you will still want to eat during the day through Ramadan. If you’re a non-Christian in a Western country you don’t want all the gumph that goes with Christmas.
Accept that Christmas, and Easter, have become post-Christian celebrations of consumerism and badge them as such. That includes renaming them and removing the religious elements. If you want to celebrate your religion I won’t stop you, but I don’t want it forced upon me.

Thanks for reading, I wish you all a very merry winter solstice (summer solstice for those of us in Australia).

Further information:

Wikipedia

Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn't Buy Presents for the Holidays - Joel Waldfogel

In justification of executive pay rises

2011-10-28T16:35:00.000+11:00

I have absolutely nothing to say in support of executive pay rises. It's the closest thing I can think of to legalised theft, to give oneself a payrise of 70% and then turn to the employees and say "Sorry, we can't afford 3%".

And so, in conclusion, who are we to say these executives do not deserve exorbitant pay rises?

The ninety nine percenters

2011-10-15T15:20:00.000+11:00

A protest group has been gathering steam in recent weeks. First in New York, and now in other global financial centres from London to Sydney, Taipei to Johannesburg, the ninety nine per centers have been running a campaign to occupy Wall Street. So what's this all about?

Money. Or the lack of it. Particularly in the United States, there are increasing numbers of working poor, who find that their living standards are continually being driven down. They turn on their television sets to hear that the corporate rich are receiving 20% returns on investment and 50% increases in pay packets, and wonder what’s gone wrong with capitalism.

Unfortunately, the truth is that nothing has gone wrong with capitalism. It’s working as intended. But capitalism in its purest form, as economists seem to want and as the richest parts of society love, is dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest capitalism. It’s about winners and losers, and there will always be more losers than there can be winners.

Western society needs to stop, take a deep breath, and consider its goals and ambitions. Do we want a society divided utterly between masters and chattel, where the ninety nine per cent barely scrape by while the one per cent are lords of all they survey? Or do we think that all people should be valued for their contributions, and act accordingly?

The situation is not the same throughout the capitalist world. The United States is a paragon of pure capitalism, and its ninety nine percent suffer accordingly. Russia is similar. But few countries seem to be immune from the taint of unbridled capitalism, as even China comes to the party.

To change, and look towards a more equal world that recognises all contributions, requires government will. It requires governments, and more precisely politicians, to be prepared to go against their financial backers to re-establish some ground rules. It requires tax rates that are fair and progressive, increasing based on the ability to pay and without the myriad loopholes that exist in modern tax regimes. Change needs rates of pay for company board members and chief executives to be tied to the rates of pay of their staff. If a chief executive receives a 50% raise, then so should the person pushing levers on the factory floor. Most importantly, change requires guts.

But if nothing is done, then there may come a day that the ninety nine percent turn to violence. That would be a sad day.

Patently crazy - how patents are failing consumers

2011-10-09T17:31:00.000+11:00

Please note that this article uses general terms and definitions in areas, and should not be relied upon for specific advice regarding patents.

Introduction

How do you protect inventors from the shameless copying of their ideas? It’s a problem that’s been with society for centuries, and has increased in scope as technology has made that copying easier.

To encourage creativity, society has developed two solutions that work in parallel. Copyrights are designed to protect the creator of an original work. The author of a book holds copyright in that book, and can assign their copyright to someone (a publisher, a movie maker). Generally, one doesn’t need to register that right, it is automatically given. If you want to republish this blog, you need to ask me as the copyright holder. I should also note that I intend to publish a separate article addressing how copyright operates in the modern world.

The other method of protecting creativity is the patent, and it operates slightly differently to copyright. Patents aim to protect inventors, by granting them exclusive use of their invention for a specified period. From Wikipedia, “The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application[1]”. A patent must be applied for, and generally proof must be supplied regarding the originality of the invention. In some cases, where effectively the same item has been invented simultaneously, it is necessary to show priority – who got there first.

The history of invention and of patents

People have been inventing for millennia, and for the majority of that history the only benefit to inventing was being the first to market. As soon as one person invented a telescope and published the details of how to make it, anyone could go ahead with it.

This gradually changed, as inventors sought the advantages association with invention and as problems were put to inventors to solve. So for instance, governments sponsored the development of a required technology by issuing an exclusive licence to the creator. These exclusive rights were offered along-side, or alternatively to, prizes for specific inventions.

Eventually patent offices were formed to review, record and manage applications for patents. The breadth of patents was expanded to include processes (or methods), detailing how to achieve an end. Patents can also be developed that rely on other patented objects or processes. In the world of modern technological innovation, one product may involve dozens of patented inventions, with the associated need to obtain permission (licence) from the patent-holder to use their patented invention. This licence is often subject to the payment of royalties, or a bulk amount.

Current patent law provides for an inventor to benefit from his, her or its invention for a period of time (20 years in Australia and the United States).

Very importantly, you don’t need to present a working model of your patent to obtain protection.

You can’t patent ideas, you can patent processes

Okay, this is where patent law gets a bit weird and complicated, and I’m relying in part on an article in IP Watchdog[2] for the information I present here. You can’t protect your own ideas with patent law. You can protect them to a limited extent with copyright law, which stops others from reprinting what you’ve written. Copyright law doesn’t stop anyone applying your ideas, though.

What you can patent is a process. So for instance, you can patent the idea that someone could shop on the web via a process of looking at items, clicking to put them in a “basket”, going to a “checkout” etc. Once that process has been documented in detail, you can apply for a patent for an original process (actually – sorry, it’s already been done so it’s no longer original and unique).

Trouble up ahead

There’s trouble in patent land, unfortunately, on a few fronts.

Patents are registered with a patent office. The patent office is required to examine the patent to ensure it meets the legal requirements, but with enormous numbers of patents applied for are often unable to detect that a process is not original or unique.

Once registered, a patent can be enforced unless a court strikes it down (for instance on the grounds that it is not original or not unique). Unfortunately, to get a patent struck down costs a great deal of time and money. So a company or individual can own a great deal of patents that have never been exhaustively examined, and use these to claim royalties or compensation from people or companies that have unknowingly breached the patent. It often costs more to appeal against the patent than it does to pay out the amounts demanded. So people pay.

Patents are often extremely broad in nature. This can serve for or against the holder. In the case of Apple and Samsung regarding the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, the public perception is that Apple appears to be defending a patent that defines a “tablet” so broadly that any potential competitor in that market space is unable to develop a competing product. This can be risky, as the entire patent may be struck down once the case is presented in court. If successful, though, Apple may well be able to corner an entire segment of the portable computing market for years to come.

Another company that appears to be attempting to enforce extremely broad patents is Lodsys LLC[3]. It holds four patents, and has claimed that a large number of small companies and individuals that have developed applications for Apple’s iOS are operating in breach of its patents. It has also subsequently sued several larger companies for breach of patents.

There are companies that buy large numbers of patents with the sole business purpose of collecting royalties. These seek to identify infringers and collecting money from them. It has been suggested that some companies in this business have deliberately targeted smaller companies, as they are less likely to have the capacity to defend themselves against any claim and instead will simply pay a royalty.

What’s the problem?

The problem with patents, as described, is they are not encouraging and protecting innovation.

A company whose sole business is purchasing a patent from the inventor and then searching for anyone who’s breaking it isn’t serving consumers. It is increasing the costs of inventions that in many cases have been developed independently.

A patent that’s too broad can devastate an entire industry sector, as appears to be playing out in the market for tablets. Instead of patenting something that is entirely unique and new, patents are increasingly broad descriptions that eliminate competition.

A patent that describes something that doesn’t yet exist (hasn’t been successfully built) stops innovation in its tracks by telling the rest of the world that this area of development is off limits.

Patents on genes have been popular in recent years. What? Who’s been inventing genes? Well, nobody – and fortunately courts are beginning to see that and strike down those patents. But the problem goes further, as companies patent naturally occurring products, in many cases that have been used for centuries by native populations, for use in pharmaceuticals.

Twenty years is a long time in some industries. In the computer and electronics industries, several product cycles have been and gone in that time. But a patent may still be active from the first generation of a product that continues to relate to a part that’s used in the fifth generation. That is, patent law doesn’t consider the pace of change and adapt its timeframes to that pace.

The solution?

Society (governments, citizens and corporations) need to revisit the purpose of patents and rewrite patent law to better match that purpose. With that in mind, I have the following proposals:

1. Strengthen the role of patent offices, and fund them adequately. It is clear that one of the failings of the current patent system is due to the lack of time available to review each and every patent;

2. Separate treatment of patents held by individuals or small businesses from those held by large corporations. It is clear that a patent law that is the same for all doesn’t treat all fairly. This separation of how patent-holders are treated will become clearer in my other recommendations;

3. Place the onus on the large corporation that owns a patent to prove that it has been broken or is valid, rather than on the defendant. That is, don’t let the law say that a large enterprise can effectively bully a smaller one into paying protection money;

4. Place the onus on the large corporation that breaches a small enterprise or individual’s patent to defend itself. This is similar to my third recommendation – we need to recognise where power lies and protect against that power;

5. Use it or lose it (for large corporations). Either apply the patent yourself, in your own products, or lose the right to the protection of patent law. This would prevent patents being a business unto themselves, which defeats the purpose of encouraging innovation;

6. Award patents only when the invention can be clearly demonstrated. This prevents a pie-in-the-sky approach to patent application;

7. Remove patent protection of processes. You call it a process, I call it an idea. It doesn’t fit within the patent system. If processes really need protection, find some other form;

8. Establish patent categories, with different lengths of protection. A patent for a new computer chip doesn’t need the same length of protection as that for a new mouse trap – the computer industry moves a lot faster than the mouse trap industry;

9. Simplify the patent registration and appeal processes. It needs to be possible for an inventor to register their patent cheaply and easily. Similarly, once said inventor discovers that they may have stumbled into territory covered by someone else’s patent they need to be able to appeal where necessary; and finally

10. Get rid of the idea of “first to conceive/first to register”. As patent law stands at the moment it does not recognise that two people can independently invent the same thing. This doesn’t reflect reality, where in fact the same invention has been made separately many times in history (the transistor radio is just one example). Law should recognise reality.

These are a few suggestions, there are many things that can be done to improve our system of patents. I encourage reader comment, and you should consider contacting your local political representative to present further thoughts on patent law reform.

[1] Wikipedia, accessed 9 October 2011, “Patent” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent.

[2] “Protecting Ideas: Can Ideas be Protected or Patented”, by Gene Quinn. Accessed at http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/11/23/protecting-ideas-can-you-patent-an-idea/id=13495/ on 9 October 2011.

[3] http://www.lodsys.com/, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodsys, accessed on 9 October 2011.

How to deal with that vampire

2011-10-03T16:10:00.000+11:00

Background

Their strengths

Superhuman strength. You've heard it said that vampires possess superhuman strength. Stephen King, one of modern documenters of vampiric habit, made clear in his tale of 'Salem's Lot[1] that vampires are incredibly strong. This has been supported by other writers on the subject, including Anne Rice on the occasion that she interviewed a vampire[2]. Do not attempt to resist a vampire by strength alone, you will fail.
Cunning and intelligence. In many ways the intelligence of vampires has been overstated. While King made clear that his vampire had learned cunning from a long lifetime of survival, Rice detailed the not-so-lucky: the vampires that were barely human and had lost much of their intelligence. Bram Stoker’s tale[3], while clearly relying on second- and third-hand accounts, leans towards a high degree of intelligence in his subject but this may be heightened by the environment in which Stoker wrote – 19^th century Ireland tended towards crediting a wide range of supernatural phenomena and bestowing upon them extraordinary powers.
Difficulty of destruction. I choose the word destruction rather than death, as vampires are already considered to be undead and thus on the “other side” of death. All reasonable accounts indicate that vampires are extremely difficult to kill. They can be discommoded, certainly. A vampire whose limbs have been removed can be considered largely ‘armless. But that vampire will remain in a kind of life until totally robbed of its essence, as documented below.
Night vision. Again, this is a belief that is more due to allegory than fact. Vampires do not have superhuman night vision. However, they do spend their time (not their “lives”, as they are undead) in the dark and so their eyes tend to develop some acuity at night. But a vampire who has been turned from a human with poor eyesight will not magically overcome that defect.
Abnormal patience. To be honest, I’m not sure why this belief has come into existence. Clearly some people think that with an extraordinarily long life vampires will develop patience to match. Documentary evidence makes clear that this is not the case. Were vampires patient, they would simply wait in hiding for human curiosity to wane. The events that so often bring down their destruction could be avoided entirely. Fortunately for humanity, the impatience of vampires often proves ruinous.
A mesmeric personality. Unfortunately for humanity, it is exceedingly difficult to say no to a vampire. Those few who have done so and survived generally tell of being captivated by the vampire’s eyes, but somehow being distracted and noticing less alluring aspects of the creature of the night. Vampires are indeed hypnotically persuasive (again, Stephen King makes this clear), but if your mind is distracted from them in any way you are likely to be able to identify problems with the scene. These include seeing how large the polite gentleman/lady’s teeth are, questioning why you should feel so happy about letting a stranger into your house at 2am, or realising that you are late for an appointment. Such distractions are (fortunately) the bane of a vampire’s existence. It should also be noted that the vampiric personality is only fully effective in a one-to-one situation. Vampires attempting to charm someone with a friend appear to find the task of focussing on both exceedingly difficult, and generally fail.

Weaknesses of a vampire

To destroy a vampire

Remember, you are not killing a vampire. It is already undead, all you can do to it is make sure it can no longer cause harm.

What if it comes back?

Oh, and one last thing. Turning into bats? Utter nonsense, just a link with the habit that the vampire bat has of sucking blood.

[1] ‘Salem’s Lot – Stephen King, 1975

[2] Interview with the vampire – Anne Rice, 1973

[3] Dracula – Bram Stoker, 1897

[4] From Dusk till Dawn – movie based on story by Quentin Tarantino, 1996

HP: A failure of vision?

2011-08-21T16:59:00.000+10:00

Introduction

On 18 August 2011, as part of its announcement of third quarter 2011 results, HP announced that it would discontinue webOS devices. The full announcement can be found at . It also announced that it would explore strategic alternatives for its Personal Systems Group (which is responsible for business and consumer PCs and accessories, handheld computing, and a range of other hardware such as DVD burners and HP televisions). HP stated that this would:

· “Move HP into higher value, higher margin growth categories

· Sharpen HP's focus on its strategic priorities of cloud, solutions and software with an emphasis on enterprise, commercial and government markets

· Increase investment in innovation to drive differentiation”

HP’s announcement also declared an intention to purchase 100% of Autonomy Corporation plc.

From Wikipedia Commons

What does this mean?

There are three (at least) parts to this story, which need to be picked apart.

Discontinuation of webOS devices

On April 28 2010, HP announced that it would purchase Palm Inc. for a total of roughly $1.2 billion. In acquiring Palm, HP gained webOS, and stated that “Palm’s innovative operating system provides an ideal platform to expand HP’s mobility strategy and create a unique HP experience spanning multiple mobile connected devices”. HP has not yet identified whether it would consider licensing of webOS to other manufacturers.

Strategic alternatives for its Personal Systems Group (PSG)

HP provided further detail on this in a separate 18 August 2011 announcement. The group basically wasn’t giving HP a competitive return. The options for this group would include “the separation of its PC business into a separate company through a spin-off or other transaction”.

Purchasing Autonomy Corporation plc

This purchase follows HP’s strategy as identified in its press release, “built on cloud, solutions and software”. Autonomy introduces itself as a software company focussed on enterprise infrastructure software and information management.

HP's website, 21 August 2011

What is the impact?

There are short-term and long-term impacts from HP’s announcement. In the short term:

· Prices of hardware associated with webOS have crashed. HP sells two models of tablet, its 16gb and 32gb TouchPad. These were launched on July 1 in the US, with RRPs of $599 and $699 respectively. Shortly after release the prices were dropped to $499 and $599. At the time this is being written (21 August 2011) prices on HP’s website are $99.99 and $149.99 respectively (and they are sold out).

· One estimate is that the cost of an assembled TouchPad is $328.15 inclusive of assembly. That suggests HP is losing at least $178 per tablet at the current price (without permitting for shipping, retailer mark-ups or other amounts that don’t end up with HP). With Best Buy alone reported to have taken delivery of 270,000 of these tablets (most of which are now selling at the lowest price, and selling quickly), an estimate of at least 300,000 tablets selling at a loss to HP of $190 each ($57 million) would be extremely conservative. It is likely that far more than this number have been manufactured.

· HP’s announcement is likely to reduce sales of its PC hardware. At least one Australian retailer has already advertised 40% off sales on all HP hardware.

In the longer term:

· HP has shown indecision. From purchasing Palm to discontinuing the use of the principal property has been less than 18 months.

· Who wants products that aren’t supported? People are currently buying HP’s tablets at fire sale prices for two reasons: hope that someone will roll out an Android operating system patch; and obtaining a cheap tablet. Oh, and looking to make a quick profit through on-selling.

· If I own a computer from HP, I’m likely to feel somewhat nervous now. Even more so if I’m a business with HP on every desk. Who’s going to be supporting me into the future?

Failure of vision?

HP has shown failure here on several fronts, and could easily have turned some expensive decisions into (at the very least) positives by doing things slightly differently.

1. No more webOS. Well, this has to be the stupidest of HP’s decisions when combined with its decision to purchase the OS less than 18 months ago. What did it gain from that $1.2b? A brief dance into a market it’s now decided to wipe its hands of. What could it have done differently? Find a buyer. Announce a phase-out. Figure its strategy before buying.

2. Uncertainty on the hardware front. HP has said “we’re going to do something”. A lot of commentators have compared the decision to get out of PCs with that made by IBM several years ago, but there are differences. IBM lined up a buyer (Lenovo) before the announcement. IBM ensured that all its customers knew exactly what was going on, and how they would be supported. IBM planned. HP has given no details to its consumers or to the market, and so uncertainty reigns. In doing this it has reduced the value of whatever business it wants to sell, as customers inevitably go elsewhere.

3. HP has failed to recognise the value of its brand. Effectively, it has just trashed its own brand by failing to clearly support its customers. How would one of these customers who paid $699 for a new tablet feel about now? Businesses need to show how they are stable and reliable, and HP has failed in this.

4. HP is trying to reposition itself, and get rid of the parts of the business that don’t make good margins. It appears not to understand the concept of “loss leaders”, or to have considered how the announced changes will reduce its visibility.

5. HP has caused confusion. On the day after the announcement of its changes, HP announced the release of a 64gb TouchPad on its French website. The French website also appears at the time I am writing this to have unslashed prices on the 16gb and 32gb models. So HP isn’t talking to itself internationally?

In all, nerds will be disappointed by HP’s withdrawal from the competitive PC and portable hardware markets. They’ll be saddened to see webOS disappear as an alternative. And they’ll plan how to use the cheap TouchPads they’ve bought.

The market has already reflected disappointment at HP’s announcement, with a 20% drop on the day. If the market feels that HP’s strategy is weak, or that the people making it are ineffective, HP shares are in for more pain.

The consumer loses a safe, name-brand option when buying computer hardware. Regardless of how HP moves to its “strategic alternative” for its PSG, it has created doubt in the minds of its customers that will lose it market share and kudos in the months to come.

HP, you could have handled this so much better.

Resources used in preparing this:

HP website and press releases - www.hp.com

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebOS

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm,_Inc.

Autonomy Corporation website - http://www.autonomy.com/

Note:

All amounts are in US dollars.

Disconnects: people and corporations

2011-08-17T14:42:00.000+10:00

Background

There is an increasing gap between people and the corporations that exist to serve them. This short paper aims to examine the historical and current relationships between people and corporations, identify what problems exist in this relationship and (if possible) identify solutions. It does not examine small business, which has an entirely different dynamic.

Where sources are directly quoted, they will be identified at the point of quotation. Other sources will be listed at the end. This is not an academic paper, and so will happily rely on secondary sources such as Wikipedia. Finally, the source of much of the information here is years of reading and observation so cannot be clearly cited. If I have said something that you feel is missing adequate citation please let me know. Comments are welcome, and may be incorporated in updates if I feel like it.

A (very) brief history

Corporations have been around in one form or another for centuries. They became fashionable in the 17th century, when the capital costs associated with intercontinental trade were prohibitive. For example East India Companies, both British and Dutch, needed capital to be able to establish bases of operations, pay for shipping, employ large numbers of people, and buy and sell goods on a large enough basis to defray their expenses. In order to raise that capital, they sold shares in the company.

In the 400 years since then, business has only become more complicated. The cost of production and distribution of a large proporation of the products we now rely upon is too great for any individual to bear, and changes in laws during that period have encouraged corporatisation.

Why be a business?

There are now many benefits to incorporation. These can vary widely between jurisdictions, but I have provided a broad summary of just a few of those benefits:

Size matters. Economies of scale are regularly referred to in excusing business mergers and growth. Less often referred to, but also important from the perspective of the business, are monopoly control, ability to manipulate markets to suit the business, and the ability to create cartels (whether official, such as OPEC, or unofficial, such as the petrol companies that somehow manage to raise and lower pump prices almost in concert);
Sharing of risks. A sole owner is responsible for everything their business does. If the business is bankrupt, so is the owner. If a corporation declares bankruptcy, while the owners lose some or all of their investment their losses are generally limited;
Continuity. A business owned by an individual does not promise a lot of continuity, and its customers will often be worried by that. Certainly individuals can bequeath family business to their offspring, but this does not always work. I've heard apocryphally that the first generation tends to build the business, the second to transform it into something bigger and better, and the third to live on past success. A manager, however, is hired and fired because of their skills, and can always be replaced;
Tax breaks. Yes, businesses pay taxes. But there are plenty of deductions available to them that are not available to the individual operating a business. There are also opportunities to negotiate "a better deal" with the local government, if you have the...;
Power. The larger a business gets, the more power it gains. This is natural, as it influences more and more people through employment and supplying their needs/wants.

A bit more about businesses

By their nature, businesses exist because of people. They exist to provide products and services to consumers (who are, coincidentally, people). Some businesses don't deal directly with people, but through intermediary businesses. Eventually, however, their purpose is to serve people.

Businesses employ people. Enormous numbers of people. In 2007, according to CNN's Fortune 500, the 50 largest US employers had nearly 12 million employees (with Wal-Mart employing nearly 2 million).

Businesses are owned by people. Even when a business buys another business, it is only acting on behalf of its ultimate owners, the shareholders.

So what's the problem?

Unfortunately, businesses do not alway operate in the best interests of people, and there's a very simple reason for this: businesses are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders.

What? That says they must act in the best interests of people. No, they must act in the best interests of their shareholders, and this is generally interpreted as "we need to make lots of money".

Fine, so that's good for the shareholders isn't it? Unfortunately, it generally isn't even good for the shareholders, but we'll get to why shortly.

So, businesses need to make money. That is seen as their primary aim. And unfortunately to achieve that they employ a range of good, bad and ugly options:

Cheap labour. Yes, businesses need employees. Someone has to do the "stuff". Whether it involves testing Tickle-Me-Elmo's tickle, or sewing the brand name onto undies, either a machine or a person will do it. Generally the machine will cost more up-front but is cheaper to feed. On occasion, though, businesses notice that there are some people who are incredibly cheap to feed and move production to China/India/Vietnam/the next cheap place to make stuff;
Expensive management. There is a disconnect between what an individual shareholder thinks a CEO is worth and what the CEO (and ultimately their employer) thinks. I have yet to see any useful argument to show how one employee is worthy of receiving up to 500 times what another employee is paid. But the CEO generally has the power to get the salary and the bonuses;
Growth at all costs. The global economy is geared towards growth (and this is a subject for a future blog). Businesses in turn are expected by shareholders to grow. This means they continually review what gaps they might fill (or create) in markets, how to reduce spending, and how to do the other guy out of a sale;
Consumerism. Now this can't necessarily be blamed entirely on businesses, but they should bear a large share of the blame. Businesses don't just meet previously unmet demand, they create new demand. They have to, or they couldn't grow. This means that in Australia there are more mobile phones than there are people;
Too much power. Big businesses employ large numbers of people. They can, if they choose, move those jobs elsewhere. They can effectively tell people who to vote for (especially if they are in the business of news). Businesses can dictate terms to governments, and if a government is anti-big business it will not survive.

In summary, businesses are not fulfilling the role originally envisaged for them of enabling investors to get together and make a whole that is larger than the sum of the parts.

So what to do?

Governments have fiddled around the edges of fixing business for many years. Unfortunately, they are too scared or too owned by large corporations to do too much. But much needs to be done.

Redefine the purpose of incorporated businesses. The purpose of "providing a return for shareholders" does not adequately reflect the requirement of businesses to operate as part of a modern society. Goals should include profitability, sustainability, and community. That is, if a business fails to meet defined social standards it should pay for that failure
Enforce regulation, and get rid of self-regulation. Self-regulation doesn't work. Nobody wants to punish themselves. In the meantime, regulators have grown increasingly close to the industries they are regulating. Yes, it's more expensive to have independent regulation. The results are worth the price, though
Stop letting businesses write laws. Copyright periods have been extended to enable businesses to make money for a bit longer. Is this in the interests of the consumer/person? Patent laws are patently inadequate - just watch the fight between Apple and all comers over tablet computing
Stop corporate funding of politicians. Surely we can do better than the best politicians money can buy? At the same time, business needs to be removed from political processes. Business is an artificial construct, not a stakeholder.

Yes, some of these solutions are drastic. But corporations are not serving the people well now, and without change this failure will continue.

Other sources:

Wikipedia – Corporations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations

Wikipedia – Stock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock