Thursday, January 30, 2014

Why IEOR 190G?

I learned about IEOR 190G while taking a looking at the courses offered in the 190 series, which had been suggested to me by a friend. I took IEOR 171 with Dr. Lesniak last semester.

I've had an interest in free and open source software since high school. Through this interest, I learned about legal frameworks (mostly related to copyright), including software licensing (e.g., "copyleft" vs. "permissive"), litigation (e.g., SCO and USL v. BSDi), copyright term extension, and free culture.

From my limited knowledge, I think patents are a mixed bag. On one hand, I agree that they are a necessary incentive, but I also think they can be abused, particularly with "software" patents. I think "patent trolls" (see also, "When Patents Attack") and high-stakes lawsuits harm innovation.

In my senior year of high school, we wrote our own Supreme Court decisions for ongoing cases. I chose to write a decision (PDF) about Bilski v. Kappos, a case on patent eligibility.

I also was an active amateur radio operator for a while in high school, so I think wireless mobile technologies will be fun to learn and discuss.

I'm taking IEOR 190G in the hope that I'd satisfy my curiosity and gain a new, informed (engineering) perspective on patents.

6 comments:

  1. Dara,

    You brought up a lot of interesting points in your video. I hope that we do get into "patent trolls" as you put it in this class and discuss not only the advantages but disadvantages to patents.

    Also, random question. Is there a reason you disabled comments on your blog?

    Connor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Connor, I assume you're referring to the disabled comments on my YouTube video. Sorry about that. Fixed. I didn't know until today that we were also making comments on YouTube. (Some YouTube comments are silly, so I disabled them.)

      Delete
  2. Hi Dara,

    I really liked your video! I am also in my senior year at Cal! Let's make the most of our last semester :) Civil engineering sounds so interesting! Wow! New York and Bay Area must be so different. I have actually grown up in the bay area all my life, so I don't really have a taste of elsewhere. Do you know if you want to go back to the East Coast after college or would you like to stay here? I definitely agree that the weather is much nicer here. We are so pampered!

    Also, the open computing facility offers so many useful resources! I am glad you are involved with the OCF. You are so accomplished! How did you develop your interest in free and open source software in high school? I always find it interesting to learn how people chose their majors.

    I look forward to this class, as well as reading your future videos and blog posts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Manali, I appreciate the kind words. Exactly, the weather in the bay area is much more mild and nice (not too cold in winter, not too humid in summer). I would like to stay here, but the future is unpredictable.

      Glad that you've found the OCF helpful. I think my interests developed from a combination of liking to tinker with things and being fascinated by infrastructure (whether that be a computer or a train route).

      Delete
  3. I appreciate the excellent links—and what an interesting “decision” you had to write!

    What, in your opinion, should be done to reduce abuse of “software” patents?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dr. Lavian. Your comment convinced me to write my third blog post on Alice v. CLS and a little bit about software patents in general. Software patents are a contentious and sensitive issue.

      In my opinion, software patents do more harm then good. With my current, limited knowledge, I believe they should be eliminated. Our patent system (as I see it) is a compromise between protecting the public interest and providing incentives to the individual. The incentive is a 20-year monopoly. The public interest is disclosure of ideas (rather than keeping ideas secret) and a market for more ideas (because of the incentive). For software, I think 20 years is disproportinate, disclosure is probably useless (I don't think any software developer would read patents, and if so, would only do so to avoid infringement), and the market for ideas is no different (a new software idea will probably be developed with or without the patent). Moreover, software patents are more likely to be vague and abused by trolls.

      I think the difficulty is how to eliminate software patents. First, what is the distinction between a software patent and a non-software patent? Where do we draw the line between a patent that merely interfaces with software and a "bad" software patent. And what about a mathematical algorithm that is implemented in software? Second, how do we invalidate all of the issued software patents without being unfair to the companies that spent money applying for, buying, or licensing them? To these companies, the software patents are valuable, perhaps hard-earned assets.

      Delete