Lots of applications beyond web surfing and email (especially those with two-way traffic) require you to setup “port forwarding” to bypass your NAT broadband router. One site that has instructions for a great number of applications and routers is PortForward.com. They have great graphics that show you step by step what you need to change in your router settings for the specific application you want help with. Next time you need to know what ports to forward for a specific protocol or where to find the port forwarding settings on a specific router take a look at PortForward.com.
Category Archives: Tech - Page 14
Capping Patents
We’re going to cap off our recent string of patent related articles with this charm from the folks at Right-to-Create. Here they discuss how patents played a role in the development of early aeronautics and how the entire thing was put to rest by the government during the first World War because of national security concerts. While the discussion about the NTP patent on technology used in the Blackberry is somewhat moot now that those two parties have settled this article still provides some interesting insight.
The Wright brothers won every patent case they fought, and it did them absolutely no good. The prospect of a fortune wasn’t what motivated them to build an airplane, but ironically enough they could have made a fortune had they just passed on the litigation.
In the end the Wright Brothers spent so much time in court that the advances they had made in flight technology were soon surpassed by their contemporaries. Certainly a painful lesson to learn.
Note that this article doesn’t get into the controversy surrounding who really made the first heavier than air flight. More on that can be found in this Wikipedia entry
Nothing New Here: Patents and IP Holding Companies
You think that companies setup for the sole purpose of holding patents on intellectual property (IP) are a new pain? Think again. Way back in 1879 lawyer George Selden or Rochester New York started the patent process of the horseless carriage or automobile.
Sensing that the time was not right for a horseless carriage, he delayed issuance of the patent until 1895, by which time a young automobile industry was growing in the USA. Although he had no interest in manufacturing his invention, he was very interested in benefiting from it. Under threat of suit, almost all of the manufacturers took out licenses from Selden, or from the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM), to whom he sold the patent.
One manufacturer who refused to license the technology was Henry Ford’s motor company. There was a long drawn out trial before the patent was declared invalid for all but one specific type of engine that was actually not used by anyone making automobiles.
Who will be the Ford of the current generation? Who is strong enough today to stand up to the huge IP corporations and call their bluff? Of course it did help that in the late 19th century you had to produce a working model to get a patent. Perhaps we need to reconsider how easy it is to get a patent today.
The Last Lone Inventor: How Philo T. Farnsworth Invented Television and Died Penniless
One of the books that has been on my reading list for a while now but that I just haven’t been able to get to is “The Last Lone Inventor” by Evan I. Schwartz which details the invention of Television by Philo T. Farnsworth.
As the story goes the major labs were having a hard time making television work when farmhand Philo T. Farnsworth noticed the horizontal lines drawn across his field by a plow. Eventually this led to the invention of the scanning cathode ray tube (CRT) commonly called television. What followed is a tale of intrigue, deceit and a lengthy courtroom battle pitting radio giant RCA and broadcasting king David Sarnoff against the “Last Lone Inventor”.
Both Sarnoff and Farnsworth died in 1971, and the contrast couldn’t have been greater. Farnsworth was broke, severely depressed, and largely forgotten, while Sarnoff left behind a bountiful estate and was widely commemorated as a pioneer and visionary.
Wired has an adaptation of the book on their website which is worth a read, of course if you’re really interested be sure to check out “The Last Lone Inventor” by Evan I. Schwartz.
Inventing the Telephone
Many people know that Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray both filed a patent for the telephone on February 14, 1876 with Bell beating Gray to the patent office by just a few hours. Fewer know of Antonio Meucci who invented the telephone in Italy about 1850. Upon his arrival to the United Stated Meucci submitted his design to the New York District Telegraph Company which shelved the idea. Fed up with the run around from NYDTC Meucci finally submitted a patent cavet in 1871 which is less expensive than a patent but grants fewer rights and expires in three years. In 1874 Meucci had no money to renew the cavet and so he lost out on what was possibly the most popular invention of the period.
For his part, Bell offered to sell the patent outright to Western Union for $100,000. The president of the company balked, countering that the telephone was nothing but a toy. Two years later, he told colleagues that if he could get the patent for $25 million he’d consider it a bargain. By then it wasn’t for sale.
More information on the patent history surrounding the invention of the telephone can be found in this article at AmericanHeritage.com
Patently Absurd
I have recently read an excerpt from an interesting letter by Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson regarding the concept of patents.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
The ideas of Jefferson apply to more than the modern definition of patents. Indeed, it could be argued that Jefferson is against the entirity of so-called “intellectual property”. He does point out that an individual may keep an idea to themself, something we might now refer to as a “trade secret”. In any event, if you’re interested in intellectual property and the problems surrounding it the full excerpt is worth a read and included below.
You might also be interested this piece at the “Right To Create” blog which attempts to explain how our broken patent system is actually costing us economically rather that stimulating invention. This is another interesting read.
Read more »
Technically Tapping
If you’ve ever wondered how the technical side of wiretapping works this NetworkWorld article is for you.
The most common type of tap is a pen register (otherwise known as trap and trace), which produces a log showing what numbers were called, and the dates, times and durations of the calls. The second type intercepts the content of the call.
Without going into excruciating detail this article gives an excellent overview of the types of wiretapping and how each type is accomplished. Some relevant laws and tapping methods for data networks are also discussed. If you’re unfamiliar with wiretapping technology this article provides a great jumping off point for further research.
From the Trenches
One of the things I enjoy collecting are tech support calls where the user makes a complete fool out of themself. I’ve got an interesting and enlightening collection of those. Along the same lines are some of these real stories from tech support recently published in NetworkWorld.
“You have to have a good sense of humor to work at this,” says Jeff Whitmore, director of IT at guitar strings and accessories maker Ernie Ball of San Luis Obispo, Calif.
“My favorite request is from people wanting me to ‘Restart the Internet [because] it seems frozen,'” he says. “I’m going to quit the day I stop laughing at some of the things people think we should and can do.”
With users like this who needs TV comedy?
Old Apple Software
Apple Computer has a great web site with links to old drivers, software updates and even operating systems. Stretching back to the Apple II days and up to just before OS 8 this is quite the treasure trove for a vintage Macintosh collector such as myself. Heck, they even have updates for the ill-fated Newton PDA operating system should you be so lucky as to have one of those.
Distributing Bandwidth Costs
If you haven’t yet read Bob Cringely’s latest column you’ll find it to be an interesting vision for content distribution in the future. Diving right into the problem of bandwidth for video distribution over IP Bib comes to the conclusion that peer-to-peer technology will be the savior of the content holders in the end preventing them from needing to purchase obscene amounts of bandwidth.
Interestingly I came to the conclusion about a third of the way through the article that he explores further right towards the end. The way to encourage people to share their bandwidth via P2P is to pay them for it. Bob mentions “Peer Impact” which is a content company and software program that has currently adopted a model similar to this. I would take this one step further and say that there is a business model for some company to create a peer-to-peer network which pays each user on a per-megabyte of transfer they do for the network and then turns around and resells that bandwidth to content creators who need bandwidth. If you think about it this is a much more efficient system than the top-down system currently in place. It also solves one of the biggest problems with widespread BitTorrent, etc. systems which is that people leech from the system and then disconnect before returning their fair share of the bandwidth. If people were being paid to simply run a P2P client in the background, one which was agnostic about what was being transferred (eg. you would not have to intentionally download the content yourself first, it would all be automatic), you wouldn’t have a problem with people keeping the client open because they would see it as a moneymaking opportunity which costs them nothing. The ISPs will probably grumble at first but in the end they would come around because it saves them internet bandwidth if the content can move around within their network instead. What you’re really setting up in this scenario is a content distribution and caching system where people dedicate some of there hard drive towards caching content that is currently in demand and then sharing that content with other subscribers on the network. I think there’s a real business potential in this market so if you capitalize on this idea please remember where you got it.
One other issue Bob mentions is the distribution of live streaming content. He seems to see this as some sort of unresolved problem. While it’s true that most P2P systems don’t handle live content very well there is another solution. For years Cisco has been promoting IP Multicasting as a way to conserve a lot of bandwidth for live streaming broadcasts. Unfortunately, the technology is still not widely implemented. If the major backbone carriers and ISPs made a big push to support multicasting on all their routers content creators would only have to push one stream out to the internet where routers would distribute it globally. It’s really a well thought out solution but more people need to get on board. Strangely enough Cringely doesn’t even mention multicasting which leads me to believe this technology is still very much under the radar even though it has been used on some private networks for years.
Recent Comments