Update on Eileen’s Book
Eileen’s first book Predicting Mr. Right will be published March 2007 by Penguin Publishing. Yippe! Visit her website and tell her how much you are going to love buying her book as gifts for everyone you know!
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 | 31 |
Eileen’s first book Predicting Mr. Right will be published March 2007 by Penguin Publishing. Yippe! Visit her website and tell her how much you are going to love buying her book as gifts for everyone you know!
Today Dan Brown, author of the Davinci Code, appeared in a British court to defend himself against accusations of intellectual property theft.
The two authors of the non-fiction work The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail have sued Mr. Brown as well as Random House publishing for stealing the intellectual property contained in their book. They claim the accused have knowingly lifted the entire premise from their research and dropped it into the book in question.
I’m not a fan of either book or any of the authors. I believe the hype surrounding the Davinci Code is silly. Never mind that, this posting isn’t about whether either book is good or bad.
This trial brings into question the whole definition of copyright. Is copyright the legal protection of the idea contained in the text? Generally not, despite what the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail authors wish. Legal protection extends only to the precise text as it exists under the copyright banner. Copyright law is quite extensive and does vary from country to country, but it most certainly does not protect an idea alone.
Patents do not protect an idea either. Patents are legal protection for a specific implementation of an idea. I am an author of a patent and did much of the work with the lawyers to create the initial draft for submission. Precise yet broad is always the goal in writing such things, yet the patent only applies to a specific instance of using the idea.
These guys are simply looking to cash in. They should get bounced out of court and fined for abusing the legal system.
I slept in this morning and then stayed in bed long enough to finish reading Tom Standage’s A History Of The World In Six Glasses.
Standage presents the history of civilization in the context of the inventions of various beverages: beer, wine, distilled spirits, coffee, tea and Coca-Cola. The writing is sharp and witty. The book was an educational read too: I didn’t fully grasp the origins of wine and it’s importance in Greek culture. In retrospect it makes sense but still it was new.
I also found it interesting that none of these beverages originated in Europe. Beer, wine, spirits and coffee were Arabic inventions with rich and long cultural histories prior to European import. Tea first appeared in South Asia and was later brought to China and Japan although those cultures quickly created alternate history to explain its local origins.
Later Europe was introduced to tea, the British Empire adopted it as it’s national drink, and the rest is tea history. And of course Coca-Cola was an American invention, with its own interesting and often bizarre origins. Seems it was invented as yet another quack medical cure and only later became a refreshing beverage for mass consumption.
The book finishes up with a small discussion about water. Interesting to learn that most bottled water has less monitoring and quality control than the tap water available in most developed nations. Also interesting to know that the United Nation’s estimated cost of bringing reliable production of clean drinking water to poor nations is less than what consumers spend on bottled water every year.
Recently Dean Karmen announced a new invention to cheaply produce clean drinking water with only modest power requirements. Standage mentions World Health Organization estimates 80 percent of illness in the world can be directly attributed to waterborne disease (also mentioned in Karmen’s announcement).
Recommended if you are looking for a light yet fascinating read.
The Winter Olympics started this weekend in Turino, Italy. This year the event is of particular interest to those of us here locally because the next time the Winter Olympics are held will be 2010, right here in Vancouver. Cool.
Prior to the Olympics my total sum knowledge of Turino was that it was the location of the famous Shroud of Turin. Took me a while to connect Turino and Turin but apparently its really the same city, different spelling due to differences in language. Probably the same way that Peking and Beijing are really the same place too.
I sort of expected that the Shroud might play a role in the opening ceremonies but instead a Ferrari Formula One racing car drove out onto the stage, rev’ed the engine then did a few donuts that left tire marks sort of like the Olympic ring logo. Weird, but what can you expect? As far as I can tell the goal of any opening ceremony is to be weird enough to make people wonder what the heck is going on. Should be exciting in four more years. I wonder if we’ll all be slightly embarrased by whatever looney show is put on here in Vancouver?
The humorous thing about the Shroud of Turin: its a fake and yet people still cling to hope that it somehow proves the Biblical stories of the death and resurrection. It doesn’t prove anything except how gullible people can be. The most reliable testing shows the cloth was painted in the 14th century. Likely it was a fake prepared for profit. Holy relics had good profit margins during this time in history, and there is a long record of such items being bought and sold all over Europe and especially Italy.
Its a pretty good fake but more impressive is the unrealistic defense offered against scientific test results. Especially silly was the testing supposedly performed to show that a fire in the 16th century could alter the results of carbon dating. Turns out the evidence about how this can occur was completely faked the the “scientist” behind the testing is a fraud as well. As for the evidence about the unique origin of the pollen grains, well this seems to be a completely bogus argument as well. Seems the pollen samples wheren’t actually collected from the cloth in question. Opps.
Want to know more? Read the CSICOP summary article by Joe Nickell. Be sure to read his book Inquest on the Shroud of Turin too. He talks about the relevant examinations on both sides of the argument and shows why the logical conclusion shows the Shroud is a fake. Good reading!
Eileen got good news today: her agent has sold her first novel! Yippe!