Medpedia: Just What the Doctor Ordered

Just because Wikipedia is wonderful (well, mostly) doesn't mean that there's no room for other wikis serving narrower domains. For example, one of the quips that is frequently made as a criticism of the crowd-sourced Wikipedia way is that you wouldn't want the same approach in the operating theatre. Well, maybe not, but this shows how you can usefully apply wikis to medicine:

The Medpedia Project is an extraordinary global effort to collect, organize and make understandable, the world’s best information about health, medicine and the body and make it freely available on the website Medpedia.com. Physicians, health organizations, medical schools, hospitals, health professionals, and dedicated individuals are coming together to build the most comprehensive medical resource in the world that will benefit millions of people every year.

In association with Harvard Medical School, Stanford School of Medicine, Berkeley School of Public Health, University of Michigan Medical School and other leading global health organizations, the Medpedia community seeks to create the most comprehensive and collaborative medical resource in the world. Medpedia will serve as a catalog, database, and learning tool about health, medicine and the body for doctors, scientists, policymakers, students and citizens that will improve medical literacy worldwide.

The key thing here, of course, is that only people who know what they are talking about will be allowed to add content, making it closer to the Citizendium model than Wikipedia (although the latter continues its slow waltz in that general direction too.)

Let's hope that other knowledge domains pick up on the idea: you simply can't have enough of this open content (Medpedia is under the GFDL, like Wikipedia).

How Open is That Database?

It's all very well calling for open data, but how open are databases really? Molecular Biology Databases aims to find out:

The objective of this project is to assess the accessibility of databases by analysing their interfaces to access data and their reuse policies in order to identify those that are in the public domain, starting with databases hosted by the Life Science Resource Name (LSRN) Schema registry.

(Via Open Access News.)

Ready for a Spot of Drizzle?

On Open Enterprise blog.

Copyright = Monopoly: UK Government

Blimey, it must be Porcine Aerobatics Week or something. Here's the UK IPO - the official keeper of things "eye-pea" - on the European Commission’s proposal to extend the term of copyright protection:

Minister of Intellectual Property Baroness Delyth Morgan said,

"Because copyright represents a monopoly we need to be very clear that the circumstances justify an extension. We will therefore need to consider these proposals carefully to understand how they would work and what the benefits are likely to be."

Kudos, Baronness: you grok it. But wait, there's more:

"I would like to hear what the public thinks about this and would urge all those who have an interest in these proposals to make sure their voice is heard and to contact the UK-IPO by the end of August."

Thanks for the request. You know what to do, Brits:

If you have any comments on the proposal you are invited to contact Barbara Squires at Termextension@ipo.gov.uk by the end of August.

(Via IPKat.)

The Egregious Economist

I continue to be gobsmacked by the egregious stupidity of The Economist:

Commercial piracy may not be as horrific as the seaborne version off the Horn of Africa.... But stealing other people’s R&D, artistic endeavour or even journalism is still theft.

Not only is it not as horrific as what occurs off the Horn of Africa, it is a total insult to parrot such a stupid, loaded metaphor, which consciously tries to equate the two. And for the six billionth time, it's *not* theft, no matter how many times you repeat it: it's infringement.

Nothing is stolen: you still have your R&D, your artistic endeavour or even your journalism. What has happened is that others may be making use of those, possibly against some laws in certain jurisdictions. Quite how terrible that might be depends on many factors, not least the scale and intent.

Maybe it would be better if The Economist put the paywall back to protect innocent minds from its idiocies.

The Acceptable Face of P2P

Despite attempts to demonise P2P, the technology is thriving. And no wonder: it's such an efficient way of sharing bits. Good, then, to see some "official" development of the idea in the form of P2P-Next - funded in part by the EU - to apply P2P to live video streaming.

Now you can download the SwarmPlayer, too:

Peer-to-peer (P2P) technology has proven to be an effective way to distribute a video among many users. This can be done in three ways:

* Download the video, and watch it afterwards (typical BitTorrent behaviour)
* Watch the video while downloading it (Video-on-Demand, Vuze and Joost)
* Watch the video while it is being generated (web-cams, live TV broadcasts, etc)

Our research focusses on combining all these modes of video streaming into a single solution by merging them into the BitTorrent protocol. This allows a single player to download movies, watch video-on-demand, and watch live video streams using one technology, while taking advantage of the popularity and maturity of existing BitTorrent clients.

We have completed our SwarmPlayer software to support these streaming modes, but require an audience to test it on. After all, P2P technology is designed to support thousands of users, and to properly test this, many users have to watch the same video at the same time.

The Death of US Software Patents?

That seems to be the conclusion in this amazing posting by John F. Duffy on the Patently O patent law blog:

The Patent and Trademark Office has now made clear that its newly developed position on patentable subject matter will invalidate many and perhaps most software patents, including pioneering patent claims to such innovators as Google, Inc.

...

The logic of the PTO’s positions in Nuijten, Comiskey and Bilski has always threatened to destabilize whole fields of patenting, most especially in the field of software patents. If the PTO’s test is followed, the crucial question for the vitality of patents on computer implemented inventions is whether a general purpose computer qualifies as a “particular” machine within the meaning of the agency’s test. In two recent decisions announced after the oral arguments in the Bilski case, Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008), the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general purpose computer.

Wow. It's probably a little early to break out the virtual champagne, but here's hoping....

Update: The ever-dependable Mike Masnick picks apart the story here, which is not all it seems, alas....

DNA = Do Not Ask

I wrote about this in Digital Code of Life, four years ago:

The Switzerland-based company says they can use a $199 DNA test (compare to $1,000 for 23andMe) to help you find your perfect match, statistically speaking. They’ve analyzed “hundreds of couples” and have determined the genetic patterns found in successful relationships. Based on their algorithm and your DNA, they’ll determine the probability for a satisfying and long-lasting relationship between two people.

OK, for certain diseases this is wise; for most - and certainly for relationships - it is not, if you think about the deeper implications of what's going on (see book for more....)

The Theory and Practice of the Software Forge

On Open Enterprise blog.

Time for the Firefox Tablet?

For all its faults, TechCrunch is arguably the leading tech blog. But it has been content to remain on the sidelines - commenting rather than jumping in. Until now:

I’m tired of waiting - I want a dead simple and dirt cheap touch screen web tablet to surf the web. Nothing fancy like the Dell latitude XT, which costs $2,500. Just a Macbook Air-thin touch screen machine that runs Firefox and possibly Skype on top of a Linux kernel. It doesn’t exist today, and as far as we can tell no one is creating one. So let’s design it, build a few and then open source the specs so anyone can create them.

What's interesting about this - aside from the fact it marks a major shift for TechCrunch - is that it takes for granted that GNU/Linux and Firefox will be the foundation of such a system. Indeed, it is remarkably close to the story I posted below.

As for the name "Firefox Tablet", I say: go for it, Mark....

America: The Problem, The Solution

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

Sounds fair.

CherryPal Cloud-Ripe?

The Asus Eee PC was a precursor of this idea:

The C100 runs an embedded customized version of the Debian Linux operating system, but the machine's makers say its main operating system is the Firefox Internet browser.

"The operating system is not exposed to the user. So the user experience is, you turn it on, fire it up and then you see the log-in screen, user ID and password. The next thing you see is the mandatory landing page -- the Firefox browser," Seybold told TechNewsWorld.

All system-related commands are accessed through the browser, and all applications are loaded via the browser, he continued. "The operating system itself is not exposed. That's for two reasons. One is that people don't like the idea of Linux because it has a geek reputation, the other reason is that it [allowed us] to reduce the overall footprint of the OS, and that has a direct impact on the overall performance and the perceived user experience," Seybold explained.

I'm sure we'll be seeing many more such systems.

Flavour of the Month: Executive Director

On Open Enterprise blog.

Copyright Moves from Reason to Emotion

Interesting discussion of the proposed extension to sound copyright, including the following:

In setting up the rationalist background of his title, Professor Bently noted that the 2004 EC Staff Working Paper, the Gowers Report, and the EC-commissioned IVIR report had all approached the question rationally, with evidence-based and economic reasoning. Each had come out against extension.

Also worth noting is this comment from the other side:

He challenged the economic evidence against extension, relying on counter-examples in a PwC report which had failed to identify any significant pricing difference between copyright and out-of-copyright music. To illustrate this point, he observed that iTunes charge 79p a track regardless of the existence of sound recording protection or lack thereof, and concluded that extending copyright would not act to the disbenefit of consumers.

Not for consumers, maybe, but what about that new group - those who want to *re-use* material? Plenty of disbenefit for them....

The Android With No Brain

On Open Enterprise blog.

OpenDrive, Closed Minds

OpenDrive Version 1.0 (for Windows XP/Vista)

Yes, and?

Nice name, OpenDrive; pity about the product, which isn't.

Making Clouds Open – and Secure

On Open Enterprise blog.

Modularity Gets Down to Business

On Open Enterprise blog.

No FT, No Idea

The FT seems not to understand copyright:

Brussels is expected to push ahead next week with reforms that would allow European singers and musicians to enjoy proceeds from their work for many more years.

Proposals to extend copyright protection for performing artists from 50 to 95 years were first outlined by internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy in February and could be approved by the European Commission at Wednesday’s meeting.

If so, Europe would move into line with the US, and musicians – from ageing rock stars to session players – could enjoy a boost to their pensions.

Copyright is supposed to provide an *incentive* to create, not a *reward* for having created. Increasing the term of copyright protection will not suddenly make ageing rockers more creative. Moreover, the prospect of an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to make young rockers rush out and create more. So this is a pure loss for the public domain. Thanks for nothing, Charlie.

True Open Source Quality

On Open Enterprise blog.

In Praise of Modularity

On Open Enterprise blog.

EngLab: A Gift of a Program for Engineers

On Open Enterprise blog.

...And Openness Can Save

I wrote about how closed systems can kill the other day; here's the other side of the coin - how openness could save lives during 'flu epidemics:

"I can't be sure that a more open process would have prevented the epidemic, but it's possible, maybe even likely," said Salzberg, who argued his case in a commentary published yesterday in Nature. "They took the conservative approach, but the flu is always changing."

O Tell Me the Truth about... the Telecoms Package

On Open Enterprise blog.

Globalisation's Upside

Yes, there is one:

The European Union is moving forward with regulations that will significantly restrict the amount of power electric appliances can consume in standby, or "vampire," mode.

...

As far as I can tell, the United States has nothing similar at a federal level. The 2007 Energy Act only requires that the Department of Energy "incorporate energy use in standby mode and off mode" in "future standards for covered products."

But no worries -- if the Asian manufacturers who currently produce the bulk of the world's appliances are forced to rejigger their designs for the EU market, they'll probably do so as well for products aimed at the U.S.

One of many examples where the global nature of production means that the *most stringent" rules get applied to everyone.