Nice laptop!

Kids DIG my new powerbook!

I sat on our frontporch doing a little work on my new powerbook, and I heard three things in this order:

1. Trick or treat
2. Nice laptop!
3. Nice pumpkins

Call me a Mac biggot, but the evening would've been decidedly different if I had been working on my Compaq EVO from work. Maybe it's times to buy AAPL again.

BTW

... Flickr is doing prints now if you're in the US? My wife still manages our photos and has a method with Ofoto/Kodak, but I wonder how long that will last... Oooh the Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 smackdown.

Irony

I setup a new website tonight for my son's Cub Scout Pack. Desiring, to have a quick win and not being a designer genius I chose to start with a blog. Ordinarily I start with MoveableType (which runs this site), but WordPress has gotten a lot of buzz in and was at the top of my mind so I figured I'd try it out. HOLY MOLY! (err... does MOLY have an 'e'?) it's fantastic! The installation couldn't be simpler, the administration interface (for controlling links, UI, accounts, etc.) is 10x better designed and equally more powerful. There are DOZENS of cool themes and installing them is as simple as unzipping an archive in the right place. Topping it off... It's completely FREE. None of the licensing shenanigans of MT.

New powerbook

I ordered a new 15" powerbook. I like my old 17" but the fact of the matter is, it's just NOT portable. So it was time to get a new one (after all it's been a whole 2 years since I bought the last one ;) Two stories. First I order right after the announcement of the video ipod. I waited patiently because there was speculation that they were going to announce a new model of powerbook (which they didn't). However a week later (after I ordered) they did make that announcement so I had a new powerbook in the order queue that was already obsolete... sigh... No worries, Apple is the coolest company in the world:

To Our Valued Apple Customer:

Apple is pleased to announce a new generation of the PowerBook G4!

Your PowerBook has not shipped yet, so we have upgraded your order to the new PowerBook at no additional charge.

For more information about the new PowerBook, please visit: http://www.apple.com/powerbook

For the latest information on your order please visit http://www.apple.com/orderstatus. The online order status site will keep you up to date throughout the purchase process. Once your order ships, you will be able to obtain tracking information here as well.

Thank you for choosing Apple!

Sincerely,
Apple Store Customer Support

Wow. Second, I've been watching my package slowly wend it's way across the world. It started in Shanghai! Now it's stuck in a "clearance delay". Interesting... I guess the goverment has to check it to make sure there isn't anything nefarious on the hard drive?

Web 2.0

I thought that this quote was a great summary of the economic half of what "Web 2.0" is trying to accomplish. You can pick up context here. While you're there be sure to read the Joel Spolsky comment (he's the one that sparked off this blog post)

All he seems to be saying is that traditionally in business, you think of inputs (e.g. transistors, steel, etc.) and outputs (e.g PCs, cars, etc.). The basic problem is cast as "How do we organize and design and optimize the production of the outputs from the inputs (with the right dose(s) of capital)?" If we do that, the traditional capitalist thinks, we get money at the end from the outputs.

He claims that the distinguishing characteristic of "Web 2.0 stuff" is that it tries to monetize all these things that have no deliberate/designed place in a chain from inputs to outputs. An example would be a blog that's basically my personal diary that would generate revenue through contextual advertising. My personal journal is certainly something that's traditionally on the periphery of the economy. It has no place in any organized "production line" (unlike, say, an author writing/researching a book written under contract). This "Web 2.0 stuff" tries to extract value from the detritus of personal and social life.

Life hackers

This article has made the rounds

Greg points out some interesting work by Eric Horvitz

Andrej points out fascinating research about productivity relative to monitor size.

Joel does the same

There are some really smart people out there thinking about cool stuff.

Plot Patents Take 2

Andrew Knight posted an interesting comment over on my original post about plot patents. I started to reply in a comment but it got meaty enough to be it's own post...

Here's what Mr. Knight said:

First, it would take no "revamping" of the patent system to allow patenting of fictional storylines. Under binding case law, storylines are probably already patentable.

Second, take a look at www.plotpatents.com/legal_analysis.htm for an explanation -- including the moral justification -- for storyline patents.

OK. So copyright doesn't protect a storyline, but rather the full expression of a storyline (i.e. a complete work pusblished or not). Fine. I also wouldn't be surprised if you could successfully defend plot patents before a court; not because I believe in the case but because it seems that the trend is toward broader applicability of patent law not narrower.

However, the nut of your defense is this statement:

"the present pursuit is guided by the realization that, fundamentally, the making of a movie (or writing of a novel or filming of a television show, etc.) involving a new, nonobvious storyline requires the performance of certain definite steps. The combination of the fewest steps necessary to produce a movie or novel or show having the new storyline is a method that should be and, consistent with existing law, probably is patentable."

Which (remember IANAL) is argued as a result of the collapse of the "Printed Matter Doctrine" and the emergence of business method and software patents. i.e. A novel, non-obvious software patent isn't ostensibly different from a plot-line because a plot-line can be expressed as a series of steps.

If that's your argument though, then what isn't patentable; so long as it passes the novelty, non-obviousness, utility, and definiteness tests? Clearly any action has "steps". I'd contend that your argument would allow room to patent "The Move" from Seinfeld. It's novel, non-obvious, useful, definite and is expressed in a serious of steps.

Leaving the "whether" question, let's enage the "why question". Why should plot patents be allowed? Your argument is basically:

1. "a patented invention protects each and every possible embodiment of a broad invention" whereas copyright will only protect "one of uncountably many possible expressions of those new and unique (broad) concepts"
2. Most plot "inventors" aren't talented enough to turn a plot into a "possible embodiment"
   
3. Plot "inventors" are left with two choices..."to sacrificially innovate for the unearned benefit of thieves, or to not innovate"
4. This is bad because "Hollywood is failing" and "[t]here is a substantial need for original, intellectually exciting plots in all forms of entertainment, such as novels and, particularly, motion pictures"
5. Therefore we should protect plot-lines

First you tell us why we have patents at all:

Traditionally, patent protection has provided the economic and moral impetus for technological improvements in all fields. An inventor is motivated to absorb the substantial financial, time, and personal costs of identifying problems with current technologies and inventing solutions to those problems when he is assured the right to exploit that invention by excluding others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing his invention.

So the question arises, what is the "technological improvement" of a plot? Or, what is the "financial, time, and personal cost" of coming up with a plot? It may have taken you years to come up with a certain plot, but hypothetically I could come up with the same plot in a couple of minutes. The minimum amount of time to duplicate your thinking is very short. On the contrary the minimum amount of time to duplicate the thinking for a car engine or a new pharmaceutical is vast. If for no other reason than it takes time for clinical trials and prototypes etc. so that you can demonstrate that it's possible (definiteness right?). If there is substantial "financial, time, and personal costs" to come up with a plot it's because the "inventor" is inefficient. Protecting the inventor of the car or drug is right. Protecting the "inventor" of the plot is not. IMHO.

Finally some observations...

1. You'd be hard pressed to prove that plots are "hackneyed" because great plot "inventors" are opressed by the current lack of IP protection. Hollywood plot sucks because the average American wants nothing to do with "original, intellectually exciting plots." They want explosions, and skin.
2. Your view of Hollywood is inconsistent. Hollywood is both "failing" and yet "a skilled, experienced Hollywood writer could ... embody the unique plot in a far superior story" I suppose you would argue that Hollywood is good at "expressing old, stale concepts in new, creative, exciting ways" but they're bad at creating "new concepts"
3. You may make noble arguments about plot "inventors" but your Postscript speaks volumes. You're in it for the money.

I don't think this is gonna work, but I'm gonna have a fun time watching you try. ;)