Neil Hopcroft

13 Photos from Munich

Things to do before leaving Cambridge – I’m disappointed that nobody suggested anything culturally attached to the city except punting…and you all stand on the wrong end here…

razornet — AUI?
dmh — Shooting is too good for ’em
necro_angel — I got a better plan…
toripink — Mmmm pancakes
dalglir — Yup, we should organise a group trip sometime
lark_ascending — That sounds like a good plan, when?
daevid — Its a bit of a trek, but I’ll see what I can do (and not particularly related to my location in Cambridge)
redkitty23 — Do you think he’s still upset with me? …also not particularly dependant upon location
rathavensmiff — You know me better than that

Keying cars in Silicon Valley.

If I’m going to be leaving Cambridge sometime over the next couple of months, is there anything I should be doing before I go?

…as you know theres no plan, but its looking more likely now.

“Just in case you were confused… PodBrix is not affiliated with Apple Computer or LEGO® in any way.”

“Politicians and the press often collude in this cretinisation of the electorate“

…the first of many, I don’t doubt.

As ever Grandi is keen to show unfaltering cynicism. To be fair he has a point – you should always listen to those who say you’re doomed, sooner or later they’ll be right. At least you’re aware of some of the pitfalls before you fall too far into them.

Todays doom was patents. A thorny issue at the best of times. Theres a lot of money being spent on patent lawyers making peoples lives a misery. And its likely to get worse not better.

The analysis was that its too late, all of the interesting patentable processes related to nanotechnology have already been filed, there are teams of thousands of lawyers held on retainers waiting to smell the blood of anyone who dares dip their toe in the water.

But who owns all these patents? And what do they really represent? Are they genuine novel techniques, or simply speculative suggestions of potential methods? Is nanotech patentable?

Looking at the software industry is instructive, if potentially misleading.

Codelibery say: “Software has not been patentable since 1981 as some claim, it was only through the mid 80’s and early 90s the slide continued into pure software products due to questionable case law reasoning”, making the point that copyright is a more appropriate protection mechanism for software.

There are also some links, which I shall be reading through over the next few days.

I think Grandi is somewhat overstating the danger – though he does have some valid reasoning for believing there is a danger. There are a number of reasons I think this is overstatement, firstly if this is the case then there are no possibilities for development of *any* future technology outside of the current holders of those patents. While I’m sure there are a number of such patents I don’t believe the ground is covered so thickly that an infringment free path cannot be found. Secondly he is not taking full account of the either the difference between the US patent system and the international system, or the waning economic power of the US. There are many more reasons, of varying validity.

Of course, this also suggests that I should be more careful about my descriptions of my intentions, lest someone obtains a patent based upon my own idea(s) and prevents me from exercising those ideas – these pages, after all, are being published without any security.

paranoia++;

So, is it going to be my blood the lawhounds smell?

I’ll give you a clue, I love the adrenaline rush you get from swerving into the path of a van overtaking me at 75.

…and somewhat unrelated: “Although the evidence is anecdotal, reports of motorists failing to keep their distance will reignite the debate over the spread of speed cameras”

“Translation From PR-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Adobe’s ‘FAQ’ Regarding Their Acquisition of Macromedia”