The Geography of Apple v. Samsung

I'm writing my post from my "13-inch Late 2007 MacBook" while I follow updates regarding Tropical Storm Isaac on my iPad 2. I have my iPhone 3GS within arm's reach as my iPhone is the only phone I own. While appreciate Apple's devices, I am not an Apple fanboy. I cut my proverbial teeth on MS-DOS and PC-DOS, have experience in Sun Microsystem's Solaris (both Unix and x86 flavors), in IBM's AIX (another Unix flavor), and have used a variety of Linux versions. However, due in part to wide-spread adoption of Microsoft programing and operating system environments, I have some experience with every MS OS since Windows 3.

Apple's victory over Samsung will have some interesting ramifications for the technology industry, some good, some not so good, and some bad.

Of some note is the disparity in international legal decisions with respect to Apple's legal claims as pertains to their patents. Most Americans may not be aware Apple has sued Samsung not only in the United States, but in Germany, in Italy, in the UK, in South Korea, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Australia.

Apple won an injunction in Germany against Samsung and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Apple itself is being sued by Motorola over push-notification technology in Germany. Motorola developed a push-notification technology for pagers upon which current push-notification technology is based. Sort of.

In Europe, and in South Korea, Apple has not made much headway in patent battles. The reason behind their inability to find favor abroad seems to be related to courts abroad being immune to notions that rounded corners should be a patentable feature.

Abroad, patenting environments are considerably different than in the United States. In the United States, an idea sketched on a napkin has the potential of being patented. A square or rectangle with arrows denoting various features has the potential of being enough to capture a patent license. Writing a bit of software code has the potential of being patented.

The idea behind patenting is to protect a real and useful "concrete" technology from being stolen by others and to provide the developer time enough to recover costs and make a little money. The idea must be able to be engineered and  implemented. The idea must represent a new and unique advancement of the natural sciences. In other words, mathematical formulas, business processes, the presentation of information, and software cannot be patented. Yet, another way, you cannot hold a formula or process in your hand; you can hold the tangible outcome of the utilization of a process in your hand, but not the process itself.

Are consumers really so dumb as to think the Samsung is literally a generic iPhone?

Can a shape be patentable? Should a shape be patentable? Should a gesture be patentable?

My response to the above is, no, shapes and gestures are "open source." In other words, they are not unique and represent no form of technological enhancement or contribution. In fact, language is "open source," too.

If language were not "open source" imagine the complexity of paying people who license every word imaginable and also licensed every permutation of every possible letter combination which might result in a new word. Every author would become instantly bankrupt.

Yet, in the United States, that seems to be where we are heading. The US Patent Office allows companies to patent their software code. Allowing patenting of software code is much like allowing Stephen King to patent all the words in his books so no one else could use those books. What S King does is copy-protect his stories, and to some extent he is offered protection from other writers deriving verbatim his works. Musicians cannot copyright the notes they use, but they can copyright the composition and lyrics.

In Europe and abroad, computer languages are seen much like spoken or written languages. Companies are limited as to what they can protect with software patents. Code which accesses a DVD drive, or a software port, or a mouse, or calculates the volume of a sphere - I'm sure there are better examples cannot be patented simply because of the finite number of ways such events can occur. To sue someone because of button placement, button appearance, or button behavior is simply asinine in most European countries because these do not meet the criteria of being new and unique advancements.

In the United States, though, we seem to be heading down the path where even small snippets of code are patentable.

Take the Oracle v. Google lawsuit related to Java. Google was able to eke out a winning decision v. Oracle. In Europe, a similar lawsuit would doubtfully succeeded, as well. The judge did say the judgment did not apply to all APIs, however. The European High Court ruled against the US company SAS, stating "a computer language or the functionality of a computer program cannot be copyrighted."

The theme behind my comments reflects the changes the US patent system must implement to ensure and promote innovation and squelch those who simply want to be paid for property which is falsely labeled as "intellectual." Rounding edges, pinching screens, and vague descriptions of techniques for communicating using copper wire or via wireless communication networks need to be filtered before entering the patent system.

"Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone"

One comment I read this morning hinted the decision might be a good one for the industry. The judgment against Samsung will foster MORE innovation, not less, the contributor argued, because people will have to be more creative to avoid Apple's design elements. Companies need to stop jumping on the bandwagon, for sure. Samsung is a global telecommunications company and has been a dominant player in the smartphone market. True, Samsung made some very bad choices which essentially gave the jury no choice but to find in Apple's favor. However, if Samsung had simply said, "Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone" they probably would have been OK. Instead, they opted to nearly reverse engineer an iPhone, which is really dumb, and now Samsung's own stupidity has brought a queasiness sense of dread to an entire technology sector, putting everyone on edge. Hopefully, though, the verdict will act as a cold splash of Reality in the faces of technology design teams around the world. "Oh, shit, we've been mesmerized by Apple. Duh. OK, everyone lets get creative."

As a direct result of the decision, lawyers will undoubtedly play an even bigger role in technology design simply to prevent further patent legal issues. Is this really good for innovation, to have more legalese involved simply to make sure Technology A does not "steal" from Technology B? Do we really want lawyers designing our technology?

"No, the radius of the curve is 0.57. The i6 has a curve radius of 0.54. That is only an 8% difference; that will never hold up in court. Your going to have to use a chamfered corner, instead.

No, you cannot use rounded icons. Let me consult the list of open source shapes, and those shape which have yet to be patented. Hmm, well, octogons are out. The octogon shape has been patented by the UFC. Uhm, no pentagons, either. Homeland Security doesn't want terrorists to be constantly reminded of what the Department of Defense building looks like. No triangles, either; GLBT have patented all triangle variants and most shades of pink and purple. Well, I'm going to have to get back to you on this."

All of this might seem silly, yet in light of swimmer Ryan Lochte wanting to patent the word "Jeah!" my comments seem pretty realistic.

Patents, in a sense, create a monopoly for the owner. In a corporate sense, hegemony, which is worse. Hegemony means complete ownership and domination. An examination of Apple's suits worldwide, as I discussed earlier, almost argues Apple is looking not simply for protection of intellectual property but complete hegemony over the global telecommunications markets, using local, regional, national, and international court systems.

I realize the jury made their judgment based on current US legal doctrine. The judgment might be "lawful" but was their judgment "prudent?" Recently, the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Brievik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for his crimes, the maximum legal judgement in Norway. In the United States, with 100% surety Breivik would have spent his remaining days in prison, or been executed. In Norway, Breivik's sentence was "lawful" in that he was punished to the maximum Norwegian courts allow, but was his punishment in proportion to the deaths of 77 people, most of them schoolchildren? That is my point. Sometimes, what is lawful is not necessarily proportional to the crime nor prudent.

Sidenote: Breivik will probably never again see the light of day. After commenting in court he didn't kill enough people, the judges will most likely extend his sentence. In Norway, while the maximum sentence is 21 years, options exist for extending prison terms by 5-year increments.

Patents were designed to be granted for tangible objects which represent new and unique technologies developed from knowledge of the natural sciences. A CD, or DVD, or Blu-Ray, or SD card reflect patentable materials. However, patent laws in effect today have not changed much to account for technology, innovation, or rapidly changing global economies. Pharmaceuticals are in the same IP/Patent boat which affects the prices we pay for medication, potentially keeping them artificially higher than they should be.

The patent process needs to be fully examined to ensure fair and equitable standards are implemented which work to the benefit of designers, developers, and consumers.

Gamification of Higher Education

I can't stand cheating, academic dishonesty, and plagiarism. People who spend more time trying to figure out how to subvert an exam, cheat, plagiarize, or pay someone else to do their homework. Fail. Simply fail on your own merit. Contemplate what led to your failing grade and change your behavior. Not everyone can, should, or does deserve an "A." Get over yourself. Merely because you have a busy Life with two jobs, three kids, a mortgage, a lawn to mow, and you still want time for fishing, hunting, golf, or shoe shopping does not give you the right to snake your way through a class. If you cheat because you have a busy life, your life is the problem, not the course.

Academic dishonesty is not a victimless crime. First, you have essentially stolen a grade by committing fraud. You did not pay for any grade. Your tuition dollars were tendered in return for contracting with the college or university for them to provide the academic resources, the classroom, projector, and faculty for you to learn something, not for a grade. Thus, you have defrauded the college or university and also any student loan or grant organization who awarded you money. When your child cheats you can tell them not to; of course, you will be a hypocrit.

Honest students also have the potential of being victimized. Any course grade "adjustment," i.e. "curve," offered by an instructor has the potential of being affected by your dishonesty. Higher grades artificially inflate grades and taint any statistics generated which might benefit the class as a whole. And, as cheaters often work as a team, the effect can be much worse on honest student the more people cheat.

Academic dishonesty taints the department's reputation, the university, and you own degree. Degrees are often reputation-based.

"Oh, you went to Ivory Tower State University? They have a really good program."

On the other hand,

"We do not hire anyone from the University of Mordor. Programs there lack credibility and rigor and their students must cheat, receiving high grades yet have no useful skills or are marginally trainable. We've been burnt by students we have hired from there as they never seem to know what the hell they are doing."

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a person referred to only as Shadow Scholar admitted to earning $60,000 in one year writing term papers. No wonder students today cannot write nor correctly process and analyze what they read. Someone else is doing the heavy lifting. Cut-and-paste operations in writing requires no thought. Summarizing requires a little more thought, but not much more. People simply do not understand eduation.

Another student, Bob Smith, anonymity protected by a psuedonym, is noted in the same article as being proud of his cheating. He never read a damn thing throughout his online course and spent less than an hour a week prepping for exams. By "prepping" I mean "figuring out how to cheat." Mr. Smith argues the lack of consideration given to cheating in the course means the university does not care if a student cheats or not. I suppose if Mr. Smith had to use a thumbprint scanner, and a webcam for facial recognition, and only be able to take the exam in a proctored environment, only then I guess would Mr. Smith believe the university was serious and academic integrity.

What bothers me is the idea which he has adopted: "If there are no measures to prevent me from cheating, lying, or stealing then it must be OK."

For U.S. students brought up with video games, attaining an education is little more than "Angry Birds" or "Farmville." Some students want to experience the gamut of education and immerse themselves within, like players of Skyrim. But, what about those players who cheat, who do not "pay their dues" so to speak and buy their World of Warcraft characters on Ebay yet cannot play worth a damn? Or, the players who take advantages of glitches to assassinate others players, or use cheats to attain "god-mode?" Most gamers have integrity and despise those who cut corners or cheat.

We live in an era where open attacks on Education, especially Higher Education, are frequent and common. Around the world, people both respect and admire U.S. education, at least Higher Education. Those sentiments are changing, however, as the U.S. Congress continues to defund academic research, higher education, and is increasingly dismissive of science and engineering. Compounding the diminishing respect of U.S. Higher Education are the increasing numbers of foreign students educated here who return to their home country and use their education to teach and train others. Countries whose populations are becoming more educated, Vietnam, India, China, Ghana, and Brazil are then able to achieve greater incomes allowing them to invest in education. A positive feedback loop is then established to continue educational progress.

Meanwhile, U.S. students, rather than work hard and honestly on their education, find themselves distracted by the opening of deer season, fishing seasons, shoe buying season, taking a cruise in the middle of the semester, video games, binge drinking, whatever-makes-me-feel-good-now-because-my-parents-have-been-too-indulgent-of-my-poor-behaviors.

Academic honesty policies are in place and well-posted. That should be enough. Society doesn't place police at every stop sign to ensure you stop, nor at every speed limit sign to prevent you from speeding, nor place police at every shopping market to prevent you from shoplifting. The absence of police does not give you the right to steal.

I tell my students a few details about cheating. First, you will never get a Letter of Recommendation from me if you cheat in my classes. Furthermore, faculty talk. If I find you have cheated in ANY OTHER COURSE, mine or not, I will not give you any recommendation. Additionally, most faculty will not give a dishonest student any recommendation, either. In small to medium-sized departments, a student branded as dishonest might as well change majors or go to another school. When the most any student has to prove competency in an area of study for a job is a Letter of Recommendation from faculty, the effects can greatly diminish the chances of getting a good job, or getting into graduate school.

I have frequently been interviewed by military security personnel, the FBI, and Special Investigators regarding students attempting to earn a security clearance. I am perfectly honest with investigators and will inform them of all relevant details pertaining to a student's integrity. Fortunately, all of my students who have chosen a line of working requiring a security clearance are ethical people.

Academic dishonesty may seem like nothing. Academic dishonesty is anything but. Cheaters set a terrible example for family, friends, children. Cheaters undermine institutional integrity. Cheaters undermine national academics and economic potency.

The same attitude of despising cheaters should carryover to education. We do not trust cheating spouses, cheating politicians, cheating police, or cheating athletes. Why should be trust students who gamify education by cheating?

PAX

Google is a Mapping Company

Google is a mapping company. For years I've used Google Earth in lieu of a physical globe in my world geography courses. If you have not experienced Google Earth download and install Google Earth (GE) after reading my post. Don't download and install now because once you realize the shear genius of GE I will have lost your attention.

GE is a wonderful teaching tool for children 7 and older. GE is easy to use and is loaded with simple features, like a measuring tool and bookmarks, which can help parents teach basic geography to kids. GE is linked to Wikipedia; thousands of sites are referenced via Wikipedia. YouTube places are also linked indicating where people have posted videos of some event occuring at the location. Be advised: some videos are not educational and only informative in the sense of illustrating Darwinian processes at work among people. But, some videos are nice and informative. GE contains a wealth of links to outside sources such as the World Wildlife Foundation, National Geographic, and the United States Geological Survey.

Grabbing screenshots from Google Earth is a cinch and embedding JPEGS from Google Earth can improve posters and presentations. Using a keyboard or a mouse, 3D terrain can be simulated providing a sense of scale and landscape relief. I recommend visiting the Karakoram Mtns in northern Pakistan, my favorite mountain range. The world's highest highway is found here.

GE also has a flight simulator embedded within. Using simple controls and basic physics, a user can pilot around any place in the world.

Now, Google recently revealed plans to map in 3D a number of cities using aerial photography. Nothing especially new about such efforts. Most large cities engage in aerial mapping missions every few years. As cities grow aerial photography helps city planners identify buildings, land use, help them plan for utility growth, estimate population density, estimate potential stormwater drainage issues, and in public safety efforts - all sorts of pursuits. Most states will fly aerial photography mapping missions every 5 to 10 years to help monitor landscape change. The federal government acting through the Department of Agriculture collects aerial photography across states dominated by agriculture. The USDA uses aerial photography information to assess crop type, acreage, productivity, and keeping farmers honest with regards to subsidies and set aside programs.

Kentucky has plans for collecting not only aerial photography statewide but also LiDAR statewide. LiDAR is an acronym for "Light Detection and Ranging." Essentially, a plane equipped with a laser shoots the ground a million zillion times and the laser reflected back to the plane is sensed, allowing distance to be calculated. The result after post-processing are highly detailed terrain maps or maps of city structures, or landforms. The amount of data points is immense; LiDAR collected for a small watershed in Arkansas was in excess of 300GB.

Right now, Google Earth users can fly around the world with some interesting terrain but the cities are mostly flat unless someone has used SketchUp to add 3D buildings. Examine Washington, D.C. for a good example of 3D urban builds.

With Google's new efforts to collect aerial photography of major cities people from around the world will be able to go on virtual field trips, or plan real trips. I'm sure Google will expand their Google Earth API to include such data for wild and crazy new apps.

Check out earth.google.com

PAX