How and why our intellectual properties became ludicrous

Most software engineers agree that the current laws covering intellectual property rights in our business are a disaster and impossible to implement. However, we should remember that nobody ever set out to design the system this way, it just evolved based upon a different environment which existed when the laws were being drafted.

To understand our current laws we must look back to Shakespeare’s time. Back then there were very few laws that protected the creative works done by William Shakespeare and his contemporaries. As a result they had very little financial security and had to rely upon the generosity of patrons.

It was of great benefit to the English language that subsequent authors felt free to re-use passages of Shakespeare's work with out fear of litigation from his heirs. However, most people felt it was wrong that he was not getting financial recompense from his creative output and so a series of copyright laws were enacted. These laws evolved over time, but they all maintain the principle that the author retains rights to control anything they create for a limited time after which the work reverts to the public domain.

As well as protecting publications, many countries felt that they needed a legal protection for inventors. One of the big differences between inventions and creative works is the fact that there is no inherent reason for inventors to publish details of their inventions. The initial patent laws granted inventors total control of their inventions for a period of 10 years in return for the inventors publishing a detailed description of their invention that others could follow after the protection period expired.

The basic idea behind patents has still been retained in modern laws, but the main area of change has been in relation to the length of the protective period. Currently patents last for 20 years, but there has been much debate about this in relation to medicines.

• On the one hand, 20 years probably provides enough protection to allow the original inventors make a decent return on their investment.
• On the other hand, it seems reasonable that 20 years after the invention, the consumers should benefit by having market opened up to competitors (who presumably would sell the medications at cheaper prices).

However the speed of innovation in the software industry is much faster than in the pharmaceutical industry. A 20 year exclusive right to implement an invention is a long time on the internet. In fact things move so fast in the software industry that parallel teams are coming up with similar ideas while the original invention disclosures are still being evaluated by the patent office. As a result companies find that they are accidentally infringing upon patents that they had no way of finding out had been already filed. There are many examples of patent trolls who try to make money by extorting money out of technology companies rather than by implementing any technology themselves. This practice has much in common with Mafia protection rackets and needs to be stamped out whenever possible.

The copyright system works pretty well for the software industry because software programs are similar in many ways to books.  Nobody begrudges commercial companies the chance to control the programs that they have developed at huge cost. However, the patenting system is not working as well.

NB - I should emphasise that what I have written here is my own personal opinion and not the opinion of my employer IBM. IBM's position is that they are currently the most prolific user of the patenting system, but they are also actively campaigning for reform of the system.

What is the big deal about net neutrality

The debate about net neutrality is quite a heated one at the moment. This recent article from sociaclmedia.net explains why many of the original innovators behind the establishment of the internet think that it is important that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are forced, by law to respect the neutrality principle. However, many other people would argue that the exact definition of net neutrality is not clearly enough defined to be incorporated into law and having too much government regulation is a bad thing. These people argue  that it would be better to allow companies maximum freedom to innovate in meeting their customer's requirements and that market competition will solve most issues.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area. I am mostly in favor of network neutrality principles, but I do see some merit in both sides of the argument. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

• Market forces  can only be relied upon when there us genuine competition in the market. I am lucky enough to live in an urban area of a well developed nation, so if my home broadband provider started to place any unreasonable restrictions on my network link I would not hesitate to switch to one of their competitors. However, I know that many other people are not so lucky and do not have any choice about whom they get their internet service from. 
• Whenever a company has monopoly on providing such a vital service, it is only right that the government should impose rules about how the service should be delivered. 
• In addition, any company which places restriction on how their network is used should make this information visible to customers before they sign up because many companies tie new subscribers in to long contracts and it would not be fair it the consumers don't learn about the limitations on a service until after they sign-up.
• One of the topics in the debate is whether or not it is acceptable for certain companies to pay extra to ensure that their traffic gets priority delivery. 
• Personally I think that if companies are willing to pay extra for a premium service then I don't see any reason why companies should not be allowed to provide this service so long as they don't do this by downgrading the service to the regular customers below what they had paid for.  
• Of course very few ISPs currently provide any guarantee about the level of service. If you use a site like speedtest.net  to test the actual performance of  your internet link, you will see that you rarely get the speed of link that you though you paid for. The speed advertised by the ISP is normally the maximum theoretical speed of the link. 
• I think that ISPs should be forced to advertise the average or minimum speed offered. If this was done, then they could be allowed sell premium services to companies so long as this did not cause the service to their normal customers drop below the agreed level. 
• Another topic of the debate is whether mobile service providers should be forced to follow the same network neutrality standards as regular ISPs. I understand that it might be expensive to build a mobile network which is capable of delivering full unrestricted internet service. 
• I don't see any problem in allowing companies to try build a profitable service that is attractive to customers with limited disposable income (an increasingly large market segment) by providing devices which are capable of accessing only a limited number of sites/services. However, it is important that people know exactly what they are buying and therefore the companies should not be allowed to advertise that these devices have an internet connection.

Maybe some of my opinions are naive. I would love to hear what other people think.

How to improve the CAO points system

This this the time of year when the Central Applications Office (CAO) announces who has been allocated places in the various courses run in the Irish Universities. It is common to read articles written around this time criticizing  the points system, but many of them don't offer any concrete advice for how a better replacement could be put in place. Therefore I thought I would stick my neck out and a practical suggestions for how to easily improve the system.

There seems to be consensus that there are three different problems with the existing points system:

1. Many excellent students who want to study at 3rd level can't because there are not enough places available
   
2. The selection system does not select the students who are best suited for the course.
3. Students are encouraged to choose the course with the highest points score for which they can qualify rather than selecting the course that really suits them.
   

I don't intend trying to solve the first problem because I think that it can't be solved without either dramatically increasing the number of places available (which is not economically feasible at the moment). However, the two other problems could easily be solved by making a minor tweak to the current system whereby applicants for all courses are given bonus points for having studied relevant subjects in second level. Students who have studied relevant subjects at secondary school are naturally more likely to succeed at 3rd level because of this head start and in addition their choice of subject in secondary school probably shows a genuine interest in the field.

In the past many courses gave bonus points to students who studied higher level maths and/or scientific subjects. This practice was abandoned because it was felt to be unfair to students from schools where science subjects were not offered (surely there can't be many of these left) and because it was felt important to standardize the points system across all colleges. However, I don't think it is necessary for all colleges to standardize their points selection system. In fact if one college was brave college was willing to go it alone with such a modified point system they would have a competitive advantage (e.g. their business courses would be mainly filled with students who had studied business at second level) and other colleges would be likely to follow whichever college took this brave lead.

My Involvement in the working group on IT in Irish Schools

in November 2009, the government announced that they were going to invest €150m in IT resources for Irish schools. This was based upon the recommendations contained in the Smart Schools = Smart Economy report, which had been prepared by an advisory board drawn mainly from the Irish ICT industry and people actively working in the sector. The government loves committees, and as a result the Department of Education and Science have convened a "Steering Group" to give them advice on exactly how to spend this newly allocated money and this steering group has convened a number of sub-groups. I have been invited to participate in the sub-group on classroom and student infrastructure. The sub-group is coordinated by Rita Sexton of the ICT Policy Unit in the Department of Education and Science. The members of the sub-group are:

• Vincent McCarvill, ASTI
• James Kelly, TUI
• Tom Lonergan, NCTE
• John Fahey, NAPD
• Adam Grennan, CISCO
• Brian O’Donovan, IBM
• Paul Delaney, Dell
• Graham Byrne, Promethean
• Stephen MacDonald, HP
• William McAuliffe, BT
• Tom Garland, Oracle

This is my first experience of being involved in a government advisory group and I must admit I am surprised at how slowly things move. Although there is quite an interesting discussion when we do meet, we have only met twice since the group was formed in April. The group is not yet anywhere reaching recommendations - we have only just agreed our formal terms of reference. However, based upon the discussion I have heard so far I have reached a few personal opinions - I would love to hear feedback from other people via this blog:

• Visualised desktops provide an interesting technology to allow remote support be provided to schools. This technology has matured in recent years and also network connectivity in schools have advanced to make this an architecture we should give serious consideration to. However, we would need to run a number of smaller pilots before taking a definite decision to roll out any solution country wide.
  
• Governments love to announce major capital investments, however without adequate current spending budget it is often not possible to make fully effective use of the equipment purchased with the capital investment. Some schools are luck to have one or more enthusiastic teachers who maintain the ICT infrastructure as a hobby project. However, not all schools are so lucky and hence schools need a budget to pay professional support because otherwise there is a significant chance that some of the expensive new ICT infrastructure will not be fully utilised.
  
• For historical reasons Irish schools tend to be independently run by autonomous boards of management (often associated with a religious body). While everyone recognises that schools will not get best value if each school acquires their ICT support services independently, the schools are reluctant to compromise on their independence by allowing the Department to centrally manage their ICT assets.
  However, the vocational education committeess (VECs) in each county do control a significant number of schools and in a number of cases they are doing a great job of providing central ICT support services for all of the schools under their control. In some cases other schools in the area are contracting with their local VEC to provide them with ICT support. I believe that this is a model we should encourage because it is a good middle ground between central control by the department and each school going it completely alone.
  

The formal terms of reference we agreed are as follows:

Procurement

1. Taking account of the needs of the particular ICT requirements of schools and the requirements of the Department, examine the current custom and practice for procurement by schools and suggest any improvements which better meets the needs of schools and also addresses the requirements of public procurement.
2. Consider the views of industry in relation to their responses to tenders - any difficulties encountered and industry’s perspectives on meeting the requirements of public sector tendering for ICT equipment.
3. Recommend a list of requirements for schools relating to technical support and maintenance which could be included in Requests for Tender /Frameworks issued by schools, the Department or the NCTE.
   

Technical Support, maintenance & training on use of equipment

1. Review and advise on the technical, equipment-specific training for teachers when equipment is procured (in this regard liaise with the sub-group on Teacher Professional Development)
2. Consider proposals to simplify the technical support and ongoing maintenance requirements of schools.
3. Examine the feasibility of a centralised technical support solution.
   

Architecture and specification

1. Consider and recommend how to achieve a more effective and uniform range of equipment across the school system which meets teaching and learning needs.
2. Consider the suitability of standardisation in equipment specification and the appropriateness of pre-configured specifications and warranties in hardware and software purchasing for schools.
3. Provide advice and recommendations to the NCTE on the feasibility of thin/virtualised client, cloud computing desktop virtualisation.
4. Consider ways in which schools can, from an equipment management in schools perspective, allow and facilitate students to utilise their own digital devices.
5. Develop guidelines on the use of open source technology for schools.
   

Communications and connectivity - including LANs

1. Review specifications for schools LANs which allow for school-wide connectivity, flexibility and greater internet speeds

Integration and innovation

1. Explore and recommend ways in which the ICT industry can support ICT integration and innovation at school level through for example assistance and sponsorship to initiatives such as the Digital Schools Award.

My talk in University of Limerick next Tuesday

Next Tuesday (9th of March) at 4pm in the University of Limerick I will be giving a talk on the topic "Confronting the Crisis: Can Technology Save Us?" as part of the series of conversations hosted by the Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society (ISKS).

The instructions I received from the organizers were that this should not be a prepared lecture, but should instead be more in the style of an informal conversation between the invited speakers (myself and Prof Liam Bannon) and the audience. I received quite a few suggestions in response to my earlier blog post looking for ideas about what I should say (although most of the people with suggestions were too shy to post public comments). I will now need to create a set of slides to accompany my 20 minute opening address. The slides won't be a series of bullet points that I read, but here are the  bullet points I supplied to the organizers to summarize the main points I will be making.

• One of the main gains from the Celtic tiger years is the fact that Irish people have the self confidence to start their own business rather than look for a safe job.
• Maslov's hierarchy of needs applies to nations as well as individuals, because the nations needs change as the nation develops. Hence our goals should be different from those of our parents.
• Technology will play a vital part in our future. However, the people who will benefit most from new technologies are not its inventors, but the people who understand the best way to use it.
• The open source movement and the arrival of web 2.0 has taught the IT industry that radically different business models are possible. If other industries learned these lessons we could improve lives in ways that are much more powerful than either socialism or unfettered capitalism.

Anyone who is in the Limerick area next Tuesday is more than welcome to come along and join in the conversation. The talk is scheduled for 4-6pm and will be held in the East Room of Plassey House.

Proposed talk at the Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society (ISKS) in University of Limerick

I have been invited to give a talk at the  Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society (ISKS) in the University of Limerick on Tuesday March 9th as part of the series of talks entitled "Confronting the Crisis". The topic I have been asked to speak about is "Can technloogy help solve the current crisis?". This blog post is an attempt to outline what I will speak about and to solicit feedback in advance from my colleagues.

Initially was very unsure about whether or not to accept this invitation, because the subject matter is not really within my core expertise. In addition, when I listened to the recordings of the previous sessions I realized that the speakers were mainly eminent professors whose talks were littered with phrases like "as I said my latest book" -as a result I was worried that I might not be able to do myself proud. However, after reflection I decided that I have opinions to express and it would be silly to waste this chance to have them heard. I hope that with the assistance of my peers I will be able to come up with an interesting an thought provoking talk.

The topics that I intend to cover are:

• Ireland's historical context:
  
  • Legacy of colonialism and the lingering inferiority complex
  • Desire for a safe job as distinct from a fulfilling career.
    
  • The obsession with ownership of physical assets
• The international context
  
  • The ongoing debate between socialist and free-market philosophies. 
  • How the cold war experience led us to believe we needed to choose Boston or Berlin
  • How the tendency for economists to put numbers on all measurements of value can lead us to confuse value and money
  • How services are becoming much more important than manufacturing or other physical production
• Developments in the Information Technology sphere which have wider impacts
  
  • How open source has moved from "social good" to a hard nosed business strategy
    
  • How the internet and the world-wide-web have disrupted business models:
    
    • New business models based upon giving stuff away free
      
    • Possible to outsource smaller chunks of work
      
    • Economy of reputation
  • How web 2.0 style collaboration is changing the nature of large multi national enterprises
  • Information technology becoming more ubiquitous
    
    • A flood of data from sensors makes a Smarter Planet possible.
    • A radical change in what we think of as computing devices
      
    • Free access to the internet is being equated to free speech

I will reference the following sources (I may need to refresh my memory by re-reading some of them):

• Davy stockbrokers research report on what Ireland gained from all the money earned during the celtic tiger years.
• The white paper from IBM and Cambridge University about succeeding through services innovation
  
• McKinsey's report on "Building an Innovation Nation".
  
• Chris Horn's blog - especially his post about "Intellectual Property – the Irish opportunity"
  
• Submissions to the Irish Government's Innovation Taskforce
  
• IBM's Smarter Planet initative
• Thomas Friedman's book "The World is Flat".
• Clay Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody"
• Tim O'Reilly's article about Web 2.0
• Andrew McAfee's blog about how Enterprise 2.0 

Are there any additional topics that I ought to cover or additional references that I should read before finalising my talk? Any comments or feedback would be much appreciated.