[CoMoDev] Re: bump: March meeting topic

  • From: David Beers <cervezas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Sue Spielman <comodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:30:09 -0700

Wow, Sue, I think this sounds like a great presentation.  If you can make it to 
the meeting please bring it along.  If you can't make it and people have 
questions or comments this list is a good place for them. By the way, the new 
meeting place is just off 470 only a few minutes from the mouth of Deer Creek 
Canyon, so the drive from Conifer is easier than it was before. Nudge nudge :-)

I'm going to go ahead and put together a presentation on the topic of SyncML 
for Tuesday.  As many of you know SyncML is an XML based markup language 
designed to provide an industry-standard language for synchronizing data that 
lives on disparate platforms or repositories.  It purports to be optimized for 
wireless networks, and there must be something to that since today it is much 
more than just a paper standard for synchronizing PIM and email over wireless.  
Many new smart phones have SyncML clients built in and come with desktop 
software so their calendar and contacts apps can sync with Outlook.  PalmSource 
is making noises about abandoning their time-tested HotSync technology in favor 
of a standards-based SyncML solution.  Microsoft has not shown any signs of 
jumping on the SyncML bandwagon, nor do I expect them to since they have little 
to gain from enabling Windows Mobile devices to sync with anything but Exchange 
or MS SQL Server.  But that hasn't kept various third parties from moving in to 
fill that gap.

This is not going to be some dry presentation of a protocol.  I'll hit the high 
points, put SyncML in a context, then demo an open source implementation of a 
SyncML server and client at the meeting and discuss my experiences with it.  
It's called Sync4J:  www.sync4j.org  

The question we're trying to get at here is: what's the best way to sync data 
on sometimes-connected devices when you need a solution that will work on 
multiple device platforms instead of just one?  I don't promise to give a 
definitive answer to this, but SyncML seems like a good place to start.  

I think our Atlanta correspondent Peter Wilson will have some things to say on 
this subject, too, having offered us a WebX demo of Intellisync Mobile Suite, 
but he seems to be out of pocket for now, so we'll probably catch him later.

Looking forward to seeing you all!

David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing


 On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:27:45 -0700, Sue Spielman wrote:
> Well as usual...I don't think I can make it down to the meeting...but I'll
> add my 2 cents to the discussion :). Among other things, I'm a technical
> expert witness on rather large (multi-million - billion) technology
> lawsuits. Some have been small companies, some have been for industry
> leaders. I've been involved with a number of patent cases. I agree with Pete
> in that for the most part they are paper that generates long and
> costly...and usually unsuccessful for both parties...litigation. Mostly,
> companies will settle on some amount of damages because to take something to
> trial (which I also have had the opportunity to testify) is a very expensive
> process that most companies want to avoid at all costs. Comparing software
> and prior art in patents is rather tedious. I have presented at the SD Best
> Practices conference in Boston on 'Covering Your Assets' (ok, pun intended),
> on the steps that companies can take to prevent lawsuits from happening and
> what types of software collateral typically end up really hurting companies
> when it comes to lawsuits. If I can make the meeting, I'd be happy to bring
> it with me and talk on it. It's probably about an hour presentation...I
> forget what the session length was. If not, maybe we can set up a webinar if
> there are enough interested. Or ask questions on the list and I'll answer to
> anything that I've had experience with while doing tech expert work.
> Sue
> -----Original Message-----
> From: comodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:comodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Pete Schofield
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:11 PM
> To: comodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [CoMoDev] Re: bump: March meeting topic
> The parent company to a previous employer was very big on patents.  They
> were a printing company that did a lot of R&D into processes, products,
> machinery, and related technology, so they generated a lot of IP that was
> easily identifiable, quantifiable, and probably could be protected.
> After acquiring our company, they carried this mentality into our software
> development.  As a result I ended up with a couple of patents.
> The process was long, full of lawyers, and more than a little annoying
> trying to turn technology concepts into something non-technical people could
> describe in legalese.  In my opinion, it was a waste of time (and probably a
> lot of money as well).
> By the time the patent filing is detailed enough to provide any protection,
> you have given away all the IP you were trying to protect.  Be a little
> vague to protect the IP and you give up any legal protection.  Given the
> speed of innovation, trends toward standardization, the job hopping rampant
> in the industry, and cost of litigation, I don't see much protection for
> software.
> The attitude of the general public - and therefore any potential jurors - is
> probably another negative towards patents.  Many people think software
> should be free (or is free) anyway because the can not physically hold it in
> their hands.
> If Xerox and Apple can't protect there IP, I don't think I have much of a
> chance.
> Pete
> -----Original Message-----
> From: comodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:comodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Beers
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:10 PM
> To: comodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [CoMoDev] Re: bump: March meeting topic
> Haven't had any presenter volunteers yet.  You guys better think quick or
> you may force me to present.  Fair warning!
> But before I volunteer myself, I wonder if I can yet shake something loose
> from one or two of you.  I notice that the EU just approved legislation that
> introduces software patents in Europe, creating quite a stir.  Software
> patents are already a sticky issue here in the US for anyone who tries to
> write commercial software.  (I've personally lost business on two separate
> occasions for reasons that related to software patent claims.)  I know some
> people have strong feelings and carefully considered positions--pro or
> con--about software patents and possible alternatives for protecting
> intellectual property. If we've got anybody who'd like to discuss the state
> of the debate or of various initiatives aimed at achieving a better legal
> framework for dealing with intellectual property, that might be a cool
> presentation that would generate some discussion.  If we had two people with
> different views on the subject... still cooler!
> Just as a quick poll:
>         Who has had the experience of developing or starting to develop a
> software
> project of original design only to find out that it runs afoul of one or
> more patents?
>         Who has (individually or as a company) researched the patents that
> were out
> there to see if a product they were developing might violate one?
> Note: I wasn't planning on talking about this myself--I had something
> technical in mind that relates to the synchronization topic I mentioned
> earlier.  I'm just stirring the pot to see if anything bubbles up from the
> rest of you.
> David
> =========================
> David Beers, Moderator
> Colorado Mobile Developers
> www.comodev.com
>  On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:20:34 -0700, David Beers wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>> The March meeting is a couple of weeks away and I wanted to firm up a
> topic or two.  Is there someone who hasn't presented before who would like
> to talk to us about their work or demo something they've been working with?
>  It could be something you've been working on but it could also be a tool,
> an SDK, or product you like that relates to our mobility theme.
>> I've got a couple of ideas, but you know me... I'm always mouthing off at
> these meetings.
>> David

Other related posts: