2 December 2013

Deliverables check list  Documentation: updated Functional spec Design doc User manuals Test plan  Code Commented source and how I get to it Running code and instructions (where, what I need installed, any ids needed)  Evaluations Team – You have an INC without this!

Logistics  SN011 at 12 pm Monday, Dec 9  Will invite all clients. Schedule will be posted and ed to clients and you.  15 minute presentations  Lunch (pizza) will be served  Attendance is mandatory

What is Expected  Overview of your project Review what you did and why Briefly explain how you did it ○ Architecture ○ Technologies  Lessons learned Development Process Technologies  Demo

The Basics  Speak loudly and clearly  Speak, don’t read: you ARE the experts  Set up and test demos on Sunday Last minute “fixes” are often disasters  Script your demos  Send me an if you need adapters or other equipment. Do NOT assume that I will remember.

Presentations Hints  Cover all topics, but they don’t need equal time!  Focus on what’s special and interesting about your project  Don’t try to cover too much  Keep it light  Give the audience something to look at

Remember  You’re speaking for 15 minutes  Everyone is listening for 180 minutes

Death by PowerPoint  Google it and you can waste many hours  One that I like…  PowerPoint is Evil (Edward Tufte) PowerPoint is Evil Do not let the media become the message

 Ownership and property  Rights of ownership: Blackstonian Bundle Exclude anyone from the property Use it as sees fit Receive income from Transfer property to someone else  Intellectual property: intellectual objects What is Intellectual Property?

 Physical objects Zero-sum gain: one user at a time Significant cost in both development and replication  Intellectual objects Used by many at once Significant cost in development, marginal cost in replication Intellectual Property v. Real Property

Need for Protection  need to recover the development costs  knowledge of future ownership is incentive to increase value

 Free flow of ideas  First amendment freedom of speech  Creative ideas build on society and culture  Pay what you want Music Textbooks Games Books Software Arguments against IP

 Copyright  Patent  Trademark Legal Protection

 1790: 14 + renew  1909: 28 + renew  1976 : author + 50, corporate 75  1998: author + 70, corporate 95 Copyright: How Long?

 Enabling copying is criminal Preclude through architecture  Problems Constrains who can use ○ Exceptions will be too constrained for someone Tracks who is viewing Digital Rights Management

Digital Millenium Copyright Act (‘66)  Illegal to … bypass technical measures used to protect access manufacture or distribute technologies primarily designed or produced to circumvent technical measures remove or alter copyright management information  Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes (Aug ‘00) 8 studios sued 2600 Magazine ○ posting DeCSS bypasses Content Scrambling System (CSS) -commercially distributed DVD

 Responsibility of those enabling it Software Network providers  Cases: software Napster Grockster Bit Torrent  Cases: network providers Verizon Six Strikes Copying copyrighted materials

APIs: Oracle v Google  Issue: Android APIs are very Java-like  Android VM was built in a “cleanroom environment”  Oracle sued over the APIs  Ruling: not copyrightable Ruling: not copyrightable

 Physical objects Process, machine or composition of matter NOT laws of nature, scientific principles, algorithms  Criteria Novel Not previously described Non-obvious Useful Patents

 Hardware, software, processes NOT laws of nature, scientific principles, algorithms  Can patent new applications or combinations  Criteria Novel Not previously described Non-obvious Useful Patents A man "has a right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject?" -- Thomas Jefferson

 Processes vs. algorithms  What is non-obvious?  Examples Name Your Price (Priceline) One-click (Amazon)  Opinions Marco Arment (inherently problematic) Marco Arment Paul Graham (patents === software patents) Paul Graham Software & Business Process Patents

Recent Activity  German legislature: resolution calling for cessation  New Zealand considering outright ban  US courts appear to be backing off Bilski v Kappos (Supreme, 2010) ○ Hedging the risk of commodities fluctuation ○ Claims denied CLS v Alice (Circuit, 2013) ○ Trading platform to assure that neither side renigs ○ Claims denied

 Word, phrase or symbol  “Pithily” identifies  Infringement: used by someone else  Dilutions Blurring – dissimilar products Tarnishment – negative or compromising  Has been applied to domain names Cybersquatting Parody or criticism Trademarks

 Cybersquatting.net,.org,.com, … Punctuation (hyphenation, etc.) Phrases, nicknames  Parody, criticism, complaint (cybergriping) Property rights vs. free speech Bringing people to the site under false pretenses Including the name in the url vs. appearing to be the site Domain Names

 Responsibility to users Making it clear that its another site Protection from inappropriate material  Responsibility to other site owners Bypassing advertisements ○ Ticketmaster and Microsoft Hyperlinks

 What are they? Invisible content used for searching and advertising  Geting more leverage Search engines Banner ads  Techniques Multiple tags to get more leverage Tags that are unrelated Metatags

The Process Customer Described Lead Understood Customer Needed Programmer Built Analyst Designed

Patterns of Success  Solutions need to evolve from user specs AND user specs need to evolve from viable solutions.  Process and instrumentation rigor evolves from light to heavy.  Healthy projects display a sequence of progressions and digressions.  Testing needs to be a first class, full lifecycle activity.

Intellectual Honesty McConnell, Code Complete  Refusing to pretend you’re an expert when you’re not  Readily admitting your mistakes  Trying to understand a compiler warning rather than suppressing the message  Clearly understanding your program – not compiling it to see if it works  Providing realistic status reports  Providing realistic schedule estimates & holding your ground when mgmt asks you to adjust

Are all projects worth doing?  Intended misuse  Potential misuse  Unexpected consequences Google glasses

Work  You do well what you enjoy  Smile on your way to work  A job or a career?  Life-long learning exponential times  5 pm: Poornima Vijayashanker Mint.com, 2 more startups