March 2012 Archives

As is common when too many abuse a given word, it eventually seems to change meaning.

So it has happened with "hacker". There is a subset of the community that uses this word with honor and dignity, and find professional satisfaction in being called with that name. "One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations" fits perfectly well the honest effort of the inventor.

Then there is the "cracker". They also face intellectual challenges, and enjoy overcoming them, but their intent is criminal.

Big difference

honest in IT = hacker
criminal in IT = cracker

not that hard!

We understand - Doesn't mean we like

From time served in school, being pushed around and insulted because of being different - a geek - is no news to any hacker.
It comes as no surprise that some people would still be unkind, when not outright insulting, and use the lamest excuses for it.

But you should know better!

1) anyone who reads or hears or sees the word "cracker" will very clearly understand that it means someone in IT with a criminal intent, just by the context. Assuming that people are stupid and won't understand is not clever.

2) about SOPA and other such, most people couldn't care less because they have no idea how it hurts them, some people might support it for the wrong reasons (like the scarecrow Evil Hacker painted by the Media Corporations), and the few people who will oppose it - and support you - are many of them, well, hackers. Using their name in vain will make them see you as either careless or willfully ignorant.

3) crackers themselves couldn't care less. If Linux is secure - and windoze is not - has to do a lot with the fact that a person who wants thrills in figuring out complex problems in coding is welcome to contribute honestly to the community and grow and be respected as a hacker - while cracking the other option attracts lesser scrip-kiddies and worse.

4) SOPA and Big Media are very happy that you use it wrong - they know very well the difference, but are the ones pushing for the concept of "hackers" being confused in sheeples' heads, so that their main opposition - honest hackers - looks "baaaad!" to the sheeple. Meanwhile, intelligent and otherwise able people get confused as well, like you, and think they have to bow down to something that ends up being selling out to those issues you want to redress

To close, from the Jargon Master, Eric S. Raymond, the definition of
(BTW, what follows is Public Domain, while the rest of my blog is CC by sa)

hacker: n.

    [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe]

1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.

2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.

3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.

4. A person who is good at programming quickly.

5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in 'a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)

6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.

7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.

8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence password hacker, network hacker. The correct term for this sense is cracker.

The term 'hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global community defined by the net (see the network. For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To Become A Hacker FAQ. It also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic).

It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also geek, wannabee.

This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a report that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage radio hams and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.

As I went along the process of building my invention's patent, I came up with the problem that the notes in my Lab Notes notebook were starting to be too many too much all over the place and not at all organized. I tried several times to write them down again in an ordered fashion, but then something would happen, etc.

So I decided I need to do some mindmapping.
Years ago for a totally unrelated project I had tried several different tools. One I got to be somewhat happy with was Freemind
Freemind main page @Sourceforge
Freemind page in Wikipedia

Apparently it also can run in less-performant systems besides Linux, is GNU-GPL licensed (thus free to use, copy, etc), and simply works real good. It can output folding HTML, bitmap, SVG, and many many more.

Here is an example, obviously with something that I do not care of losing my international rights on, which is an educational kit for doing electronics, whose main improvement is being solderless - thus uses wire wrap and clamping, instead of soldering components or using a breadboard. For example here my notes on ancient and thus very much out-of patent patents that refer to these technologies, so I can be sure I am not getting into any trouble by using them in a commercial product.

Click on the title above to see both the clickable HTML and a static PNG

Gee whiz.

This is BAD

The United States was the last country left where the patent process (at least in theory) protects the inventor rather than the one to file.
Filing for a patent is expensive. Before this law, your invention, even if not patented for one year, had some degree of protection - not a problem when you're a corporation with lots of $$$. In effect, one more law that benefits deep pockets, and strips away the rights of the common citizen vs. the corporation.

What is the Difference?

• the law right now:
  You invent something. You make a record of it, or you publish your invention, say by writing a paper that describes it - for example in a scientific journal - or show it in a science fair, writing an Instructable, a blog or Youtube, etc.
  According to the way the United States has been doing things forever, YOU and only you own the invention. You may file for a patent within one year, and nobody else can take your rights, when you point out that you had the invention "reduced to practice" before they did, which is easy if you were really public about it - lots of law and court precedents. The moment you made it known to the public, for every other country in the world your invention became "prior art", so outside the US your invention is now pretty much in the public domain and cannot be patented there at all, by you or anybody. They can manufacture and make use of your idea, and you cannot complain unless they sell it in the US.
  In the land of the free, for one year you can try to market your invention quite publicly, take it to industry conferences, look for an investor, etc., even while you do not have the money to pursue a patent (though getting at least a provisional patent is highly encouraged). These rights apply also to foreign inventors, but only in the USA (and they wonder why more inventions get support here than in their own countries...)
  
  
• The AIA way:
  I quote from a comment by Pressman "if two applicants apply for respective patents on the same invention, the first applicant's patent application can be used to reject the later applicant's claims, even if the later applicant can prove they invented it first."
  That sort of says it all. Starting March 16, 2013, basically anybody can step up to the USPTO and file for that idea of yours that they read about it in your blog or saw at that conference. Yes, certainly there is still a derivation proceeding format, but it becomes much harder - your lab notes and your prior publication matter much less because you did not file for as patent! They did.
  

Bottom line: the independent inventor better get going with spending those $$$ he has so much of, to patent everything they come up with!
Just publishing your idea, or trying to market it without a patent is more dangerous than ever!

Anything good in the AIA?

You wonder if there was ever a real good intention, or it just was made to look that way. The "unintended consequences" are so obvious it's not even funny.

it will be easier to buy your way in. You got $2,400? that could buy you a "priorized examination" - that is, if corporations left open any of the 10.000 slots available the first year.

Unintended effects of other several supposedly "positive" elements of the law will make the USPTO backlog grow even worse, delays in granting patents longer, and excuses to disallow your patent more frequent. There is even some provision to waive 75% of the fees for microinventors, independents who have few patents and are "under-resourced", and a call for pro-bono.

Do you think that will work? I quote from B.Milliron, an Amazon reviewer, "The examiner is NOT your friend and they have no obligation to be reasonable. In fact they have every incentive to be unreasonable. An abandoned application is preferable to a patent with strong protections because the latter may end up in court and a judge might decide the patent was overbroad, a risk the examiner would rather not take." Yes, it is possible to fight those unending "unconvincing" or "I don't get it" that I am told are the usual response to a patent application, and win, but you better have a great lawyer. I hear those are cheaper by the dozen and quite affordable by the independent, what do you think?

Link to the analysis of the AIA law by David Pressman, noted IP lawyer and author, from his website IntellectualPropertyLawFirms.com

http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/patents/america-invents-

To me, an invention is an idea turned into something that improves life.

Not all Invention is Innovation

I am way past habitué to "reinvent" or to find "my inventions" already for sale, mutatis mutandis, to adopt/adapt/hack other people's ideas, re-creating their invention...

The Problem

So, here I am with tree branches that need trimming. As is wont to happen with old trees, some of those branches are really too high to reach with conventional tools.

The Itch

This week, I really had to do something about these branches. What about tying chainsaw chain to ropes?

Prior Art

Years ago my Dad had this "backpocket saw", which was a serrated wire with two handles (sort of like this one). It eventually rusted and broke, but using it must have left in my brain the concept that a flexible saw-thing was possible.   Eventually a couple years ago I came upon this "chainsaw in a can". Didn't quite convince me.

As-seen-on-the-Internet "survival saws" look and fell not much better than gadget toys.

Scratching the Itch

For real man's work I needed a piece of real chainsaw. In Uruguay I could buy chainsaw chain "by the yard", so I looked for that product here. No luck.

A few stores (Lowe's, Home Depot, Sears) had ready-made replacement chain loops for chainsaws. I knew I could cut a link, and end up with a nice bit of chain that way. Having some outstanding store credit there, I went to Sears.

Back home I cut a link using a grinder, which turned out to take just a bit longer than expected (that metal is tough!), and with a piece of wire from a hanger and some rope, I was in business. 

OK, maybe not quite so fast, took a couple tries to learn how to pull for a smooth, effective cut, but then it did work!

Debrief

1. Exposure to ideas breed ideas
2. Having easy access to, and being handy in using tools (like the grinder) and assorted odds and ends (rope, wire) let one "reduce to practice" an invention painlessly
3. By publishing this I lost the international rights, and would have to file for US patent within one year max. Probably neither matters, since I see little of patentable interest here