Still lookin' for a job. Not fun. Really only started last week, so I havn't had any calls yet, but there job listings arn't barren, so I'm keeping a positive frame of mind about this.
Yesterday I went and saw a play that my friend Paul did lighting design for. It was alright, but nuthin' special. Then I went and hung out with my neighbour Jenn and two german lesbians, who are visiting Canada and rooming with Jenn until they do the cross country thing this month, at Pride. A good time was had by all, although I was slightly dissappointed that I didn't (and don't) have the funds neccessary to party with Cory and Tony in the beer gardens. Got a few looks from a few queers, which always makes a man feel special, but I always get worried I'm just teasing them (there goes my self-centeredness again) so I rarely shoot a smile back. AHH I HAVE ISSUES.
And another year passes where any and all plans to catch some jazz fall through. (My dad invited me out one night, but I was in the headspace to stay home ... and it was just a jam night. Sorry dad .. was it good?)
I do find that not working has really restored some of my hibernating positivity. I was getting very cynical and burnt out at Zaq. This break (for which my trip to NZ was the perfect christening) has helped me regain some of the perspective I lost while I was at Zaq.
No new tunes for now. Anyone who has an idea of where I could snag some EXS24 drum patches is invited to contact me.
On the political front: this
There are two issues here: Reverse engineering, and EULAs.
Man puts into EULA (that contract about the 'yes' you click on when you install software) into software saying that company is not allowed to reverse engineer product. Larger competitor does so. Man sues for contract (EULA) and patent infringement. He wins both.
But ... .. wait a minute. EULA's are not legally binding. Network Associates was busted for an EULA that restricted the user beyond the freedoms that user enjoyed in his legal juristiction. Since you agree to an EULA only after purchasing the product (by hitting 'yes'), restrictions that may cause the purchaser to own a product with which he or she cannot do the things they thought they could do when they bought the product clearly put the consumer at an unfair disadvantage.
So how did this guy win the contract aspect above since it is legal to reverse engineer, so long as you do not end up stepping on somebody else's patent? Did the breach of contract involve *only* the reverse engineering of the patent? Why was simply patent infringement not sufficient? Why do I get so worried when I think about decisions being made regarding the legal framework surrounding software, when software is pretty much unlike *any* other form of innovation. Programming is simply the expression of a set of pre-existing statements. Unlike bricks and mortar science where there may only be one or two ways of achieving something, granting the original innovator a limited right to royalties, in programming there are often dozens of ways of doing the same thing. I suspect this is why software does not fit the current patent system model. It is far too easy to duplicate innovations in clean room scenarios, which is why we see the shift to patenting the function (what the thing does), not the implementation of the function (how you got it to do that.) It is out of neccessity, but something has to be done. As it stands, we've yet to realize that software sits somewhere between the copyright (not allowing somebody to reproduce your code) and the patent (not allowing people to duplicate the method you used to achieve the result.)
Posted by garret at June 30, 2003 01:38 PM