Blog

By now I’m sure most of you have heard that the Chinese government [PRC] has banned 50 video game titles. What disturbed me wasn’t this fact, but rather that the article also stated that the same government “…will focus on combating illegal publications. This especially concerns pirated textbooks, electronic publications and illegal journals…”

This is simply a pretext to go ban textbooks, for anything that’s brought from outside of the PRC’s jurisdiction is considered pirated materials. What do journals/textbooks have in common? They educate. They inform. They tell of things outside the figurative box in which one lives. Even if some aren’t always correct, the possibility still remains. The statement quoted above is a silent reminder that China is still very much a Commmunist nation intent on keeping its people in a limited (read: oppressed) situation.

Tying with the above subject; today a Chinese double-gold medalist in Athens was kicked off the olympic team for being toopublicized. These tidbits are of the news this week. Now picture the situation being like so all year round.

I’m detailing this because I’ve seen an increasing number of articles praising the progress of the People’s Republic of China with regards to world ties. Though China has opened up more market ties in recent years, the nation is still very much authotarian, and that is a fact that should not be so soon forgotten (*cough*).

Well its fair to say that the patent system is fairly upside-down. As is:
1. Patents are getting to be general concepts, not actual designs.
2. Patents are being handed out to groups who didn’t invent the darned things.
3. Patents are issued, even though the idea already existed previously.

Again, due to ignorance of the North American government, this is only happening in the computer industry. Such disregard for the basis of what patents represent (ie. rewarding those who invent things) is really going to screw over future innovation. This is the equivalent of allowing someone to patent the idea of “using flour for food” in today’s modern age. It fits the criterias after all: its a general concept, encompassing many other innovations such as “bread” and “cake”. It is issued to someone/group which has nothign to do with inventing it, and it is being issued even though the idea existed previously.

Why do I bring this issue up? The US Patent Office just allowed McAfee to patent the underlying concepts of todays firewalls, as well as tracerouting. Both things McAfee did not originally invent. Both things that existed previously. And both things that areconcepts…. McAfee isn’t patenting code here, they’re patenting a general idea.

This also means that McAfee is free to sue Norton, ZoneAlarm, Kerio, Sygate and all the other corporate entities that have developped firewalls over the years. The European Union is still in the process of negiotiating the permittance of Software Patents. Thanks to Poland, the laws have yet to pass on this issue (this is a good thing).

I’m not against patenting software. Or at least patenting good sizeable chunks of code. What I am against is the current level of incredible abuse going on in the patent system. In its current North American form, such ignorant patent laws will only deter future innovation and screw us over as people in general.

Read Full Article Here

The EYNTO Show (aka. the everything you need to know show) is my new pet project. It is going to be a one time one hour computer show informing the audience on the basics of the more advanced stuff they may engage in. Topics will include safer Internet browsing (browsers, vulnerability basics), Firewalls, Anti-Spyware stuff, P2Ps: which clients to avoid, basic computer upgrades (RAM, Optical drive), etc. Target audience: young adults.

I have no clue when it will be completed. I aim for a target of 4 weeks.

Within the last 48 hours, I’ve had 2 instances of this blog being spammed via the comments section. What this entails is essentially ‘bots posting non-related material in the comments, with a URL that points to some kind of [insert sex/fetish/advertising/lowlife site here]. The first comment posted something out of the headlines, which made it look half-legit (someone not knowing how comments work) with one of the questionable URLs. The second comment was less subversive.

I praise Capitalism. It is the basis for the greatest elements of human history. That said, I wish advertising had never been invented. Scratch that. I wish that unethical bastards carrying out such lowlife advertising (including the SOBs that waste my inbox’ bandwidth) were consigned to [insert unpleasant activity here].

Liscencing is [unfortunately] the wave of the future. No longer do you actually own anything you purchase; rather you obtain the ability to use it for a set period of time, after which point you lose that right. It makes sense in some fields, such as Antiviri software, in which the bandwidth used updating the products’ definitions rack up real money over time. However, it is being more and more applied in fields where it doesn’t belong. Then there’s DRM, a form of liscencing that restricts you on use rather than by time…

eBooks are a great example. If you buy a DRMed eBook (which consists a large proportion of all commercial text out there), then you purchased a Liscence to use the eBook. You don’t actually own it. The difference? Well, when you’re liscenced, you can’t do what you want with your property. You cannot print off your eBook more than twice, for example. You can’t have a computer speak it out loud. You can’t do this or that, even though you payed $15. A real book in comparison is much better: you pay the same, but you can do whatever you want with it. A very clever quote somewhere? You want to photocopy that page? No problems. And such activity by the way is legal. Companies just would rather nick you for every cent.

Another example is for example internet music. You just payed $25 for 15 tracks of music from an online service such as iTunes. However, even though you bought the music, it still isn’t yours so to speak. You cannot burn it to an actual CD. You cannot listen to it on other players. No, instead, you are restricted to use it as the company sees fit. A real CD in comparison is much better: you pay the same, but you can do whatever you want with it. Back up to MP3 and listen on your iPod? No problem. Listen on a DVD/CD player? No problem. Again, such activity is legal, but the companies still don’t allow you to use it.

Another example is liscencing with Microsoft Office for example. You as a government entity or agency pay Microsoft thousands of dollars, and in exchange you get to use their software for a year. After that point, even though the software is zero-maintenance on the part of Microsoft… you still can’t use it. It is this type of liscencing which I find especially worrisome.

Picture this:
You spend $40 on a chair. But that only gives you the right to use it for a year, because liscencing isn’t the same thing as actually owning property. Then, after that year: BAM. Spikes come out of the chair, and you have to spend another $40 if you want to use it again.

Companies like giving the illusion that you own the things they sell you. Else you wouldn’t buy it. Not only that, but the government realising the nefarious potential of this system would legislate acts to prevent overuse of the system. However, companies don’t have to try very hard putting up this fake front: the government doesn’t care. People don’t care. Why? Because this is all still in the “computer world”, a field that few higher-ups bother to understand.

However, this will soon exit this computer world as it becomes standard business practice. It will be interesting to see how its dealt with then.