Notes from Author Publishing Mandates for Researchers

Notes from Deposit Mandate Meeting

Overview and schedule for the days talks

My bookmarked links from the day: http://delicious.com/dfflanders/rsp

Funders Mandates by Robert Kilney from the Wellcome Trust

• 48 funders now have a OA policy (”mandate”) to deposit published content, including: UKMPC, HIM HNMI, etc… 10:05:25
• Wellcome wants publishers to offer service to author to auto publish XML paper with CC license (publishers are mostly keen) 10:07:07
• authors don’t want to deposit themselves, they expect publisher to deal with it, though this costs Wellcome up to 2% of their budget 10:09:07
• author self publishing could result in an additional £80million of funding that could go into research 10:14:02
• chriskeene: will be publishing my notes from mandates event later noticing a few familiar faces here (little wave at @dfflanders)10:14:38
• workflow for publishers (email to author) has resulted in a significant “box ticking” of OA route 10:17:08
• many publishers still do not have an OA policy and have not adopted an OA option workflow for authors 10:21:31
• nice = blog post of presentation up as last slide of presentation #wellcome http://bit.ly/X6Vcm 10:25:07
• Q: how Wellcome will also provide policy on research data that goes up alongside publication, A: 2 policies that need to be connected 10:28:01
• Wellcome supplements grant with OA publishing fee (is not included in Grant budget) so money has to be spent on OA 10:30:18
• OA money is not given to publisher but paid to author so they are aware of the costs they are spending on OA 10:31:52
• research councils perspective up next 10:33:04

Research Councils UK by Astrid Wissenburg, ESRC

• chriskeene: will be adding to the same blog post throughout the day http://sn.im/j0677 ‘pinch of salt’ sorryfor spelling. 10:38:59
• Research Councils have very different cultures in how hand’s on they are with their funding and mandates http://tinyurl.com/kq8t5s 10:40:46
• RT: Why Research Councils are interested in OA (aka repositories) = 1 speed of dissimination, 2 priciple of “free” for end user… 10:43:37
• jury is still out on if OA increases citation rates, but RC’s could respond more if evidence for this. 10:44:55
• still no decision on if Research Councils are subject to FOI request for publically funded research 10:45:58
• Institutions could add OA publishing costs to fEC <–what systems do Grants departments monitor this by, CRM? 10:47:10
• RAE funding has clear business case for why institution should be actively maintaining OA publishing workflows 10:49:31
• STFC required OA for projects Oct 2006, should see affect five years anon, so still waiting to see response. 10:53:06
• 3/4 of researchers still not aware there is a mandate, senior researchers aware, new researchers not (despite willingness 4 new models) 10:57:09
• embargo periods are difficult to mandate or monitor, need institutions to have internal (fEC) workflows to assure 10:58:51
• RCUK position on OA here http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/default.htm 11:23:35
• chriskeene: nice coffee on a sunny balcony, now in next session at 12:07:55
• embargos are the “problem space” that need to be explored <–could OAI-ORE have a real use case for embargo parts of papers? 12:15:32
• UKPubMed using Whatizit text mining pipe via iHop to enhance search 12:15:49
• jimdowning: @dfflanders You weren’t in the ICE-TheOREM presentation then? Yes. It can. 12:19:17
• Oppenheim up next on Houghton Report 12:20:30

Economic Implications for Alternative Schoarly Publishing Models by Charles Oppenheim from Loughborough University

• Oppenheim insisting that at start of report he was open to publishers as offering a good deal to scholarly communication 12:21:05
• Houghton report here: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2009/01/houghton.aspx 12:22:47
• @jimdowning sorry should have cited you! Yes ICE-Theorm was first to show pragmatics of ORE, re embargo of sections in papers 12:25:49
• ~100million in cost savings if we embraced open access publishing of publically funded research content 12:26:18
• 2,300 activities were identified in publish process model for Houghton report so as to provide estimate of cost 12:29:25
• used a solow-swam model (Nobel Prized model) for economic costing (publishers contested though no alternative model suggestions) 12:32:04
• Houghton looking to extend this model to all countries (UK and Australia thus far) 12:33:49
• Houghton Report recommendation is that OA cost saving would equal greater funding for research (bottomLine) 12:34:53
• Houghton report data is available OA so anyone can update data so model will churn out alternative findings 12:37:58
• moving forward: publishers in conversation with JISC to fund further study to have more accurate figures to put into model 12:39:34
• Loughborough response to report was to mandate OA starting Oct 2009, will be enforced via Personal Research Plan meeting with author. 12:50:11
• chriskeene: have updated blog post http://sn.im/j0677 12:52:49

Lunch happened somewhere around here, and Chris Keen gave an audio summary of the morning.

• aclobridge: RT @dfflanders ~100million in cost savings if we embraced open access publishing of publically funded research content 15:19:47

Institutional Policies and Processes for Mandate Compliance by Bill Hubbard from SHERPA

• mandates as a way of harmonising view (not as god’s commandment from on high) 15:20:52
• liking hubbard’s movement around room, shows his passion for what we can achieve. 15:25:27
• pointing out the multiple decisions authors could make in deciding how to publish OA, need to “mandate” common workflow decision easier 15:28:44
• “compliance…big it up” <- there are repository groups in every Russell and 1994 group who are there to support mandate 15:37:32
• RSP will look to compile a list of ppl in each HEIs so funders can go to them to find out who to contact that will follow up mandate compliance 15:50:54
• publishers need to see repo managers as friends as they police copyright

Notes from Deposit Mandate Meeting

Overview and schedule for the days talks

Funders Mandates by Robert Kilney from the Wellcome Trust

• 48 funders now have a OA policy (”mandate”) to deposit published content, including: UKMPC, HIM HNMI, etc… 10:05:25
• Wellcome wants publishers to offer service to author to auto publish XML paper with CC license (publishers are mostly keen) 10:07:07
• authors don’t want to deposit themselves, they expect publisher to deal with it, though this costs Wellcome up to 2% of their budget 10:09:07
• author self publishing could result in an additional £80million of funding that could go into research 10:14:02
• chriskeene: will be publishing my notes from mandates event later noticing a few familiar faces here (little wave at @dfflanders)10:14:38
• workflow for publishers (email to author) has resulted in a significant “box ticking” of OA route 10:17:08
• many publishers still do not have an OA policy and have not adopted an OA option workflow for authors 10:21:31
• nice = blog post of presentation up as last slide of presentation #wellcome http://bit.ly/X6Vcm 10:25:07
• Q: how Wellcome will also provide policy on research data that goes up alongside publication, A: 2 policies that need to be connected 10:28:01
• Wellcome supplements grant with OA publishing fee (is not included in Grant budget) so money has to be spent on OA 10:30:18
• OA money is not given to publisher but paid to author so they are aware of the costs they are spending on OA 10:31:52
• research councils perspective up next 10:33:04

Research Councils UK by Astrid Wissenburg, ESRC

• chriskeene: will be adding to the same blog post throughout the day http://sn.im/j0677 ‘pinch of salt’ sorryfor spelling. 10:38:59
• Research Councils have very different cultures in how hand’s on they are with their funding and mandates http://tinyurl.com/kq8t5s 10:40:46
• RT: Why Research Councils are interested in OA (aka repositories) = 1 speed of dissimination, 2 priciple of “free” for end user… 10:43:37
• jury is still out on if OA increases citation rates, but RC’s could respond more if evidence for this. 10:44:55
• still no decision on if Research Councils are subject to FOI request for publically funded research 10:45:58
• Institutions could add OA publishing costs to fEC <–what systems do Grants departments monitor this by, CRM? 10:47:10
• RAE funding has clear business case for why institution should be actively maintaining OA publishing workflows 10:49:31
• STFC required OA for projects Oct 2006, should see affect five years anon, so still waiting to see response. 10:53:06
• 3/4 of researchers still not aware there is a mandate, senior researchers aware, new researchers not (despite willingness 4 new models) 10:57:09
• embargo periods are difficult to mandate or monitor, need institutions to have internal (fEC) workflows to assure 10:58:51
• RCUK position on OA here http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/default.htm 11:23:35
• chriskeene: nice coffee on a sunny balcony, now in next session at 12:07:55
• embargos are the “problem space” that need to be explored <–could OAI-ORE have a real use case for embargo parts of papers? 12:15:32
• UKPubMed using Whatizit text mining pipe via iHop to enhance search 12:15:49
• jimdowning: @dfflanders You weren’t in the ICE-TheOREM presentation then? Yes. It can. 12:19:17
• Oppenheim up next on Houghton Report 12:20:30

Economic Implications for Alternative Schoarly Publishing Models by Charles Oppenheim from Loughborough University

• Oppenheim insisting that at start of report he was open to publishers as offering a good deal to scholarly communication 12:21:05
• Houghton report here: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2009/01/houghton.aspx 12:22:47
• @jimdowning sorry should have cited you! Yes ICE-Theorm was first to show pragmatics of ORE, re embargo of sections in papers 12:25:49
• ~100million in cost savings if we embraced open access publishing of publically funded research content 12:26:18
• 2,300 activities were identified in publish process model for Houghton report so as to provide estimate of cost 12:29:25
• used a solow-swam model (Nobel Prized model) for economic costing (publishers contested though no alternative model suggestions) 12:32:04
• Houghton looking to extend this model to all countries (UK and Australia thus far) 12:33:49
• Houghton Report recommendation is that OA cost saving would equal greater funding for research (bottomLine) 12:34:53
• Houghton report data is available OA so anyone can update data so model will churn out alternative findings 12:37:58
• moving forward: publishers in conversation with JISC to fund further study to have more accurate figures to put into model 12:39:34
• Loughborough response to report was to mandate OA starting Oct 2009, will be enforced via Personal Research Plan meeting with author. 12:50:11
• chriskeene: have updated blog post http://sn.im/j0677 12:52:49

Lunch happened somewhere around here, and Chris Keen gave an audio summary of the morning.

• aclobridge: RT @dfflanders ~100million in cost savings if we embraced open access publishing of publically funded research content 15:19:47

Institutional Policies and Processes for Mandate Compliance by Bill Hubbard from SHERPA

• mandates as a way of harmonising view (not as god’s commandment from on high) 15:20:52
• liking hubbard’s movement around room, shows his passion for what we can achieve. 15:25:27
• pointing out the multiple decisions authors could make in deciding how to publish OA, need to “mandate” common workflow decision easier 15:28:44
• “compliance…big it up” <- there are repository groups in every Russell and 1994 group who are there to support mandate 15:37:32
• RSP will look to compile a list of ppl in each HEIs so funders can go to them to find out who to contact that will follow up mandate compliance 15:50:54
• publishers need to see repo managers as friends as they police copyright

Auto paste of JISCBIDS spreadsheet marks.

So @cardcc suggested at #rpmeet that most everyone was using an offline template spreadsheet to mark #jiscbids and that it would be a real time saver if there was a way to auto copy and paste the offline spreadsheet in one go.  Well I don’t have a one go solution but I do have a three step solution that I was able to piece together over the weekend (while marking bids).

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ONLY A PROTOTYPE AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL WAY TO SUBMIT MARKS FOR JISCBIDS, THIS IS ONLY AN PROTOTYPE TO SHOW HOW THIS MIGHT BE ACHIEVED.  YOU STILL MUST SUBMIT BIDS USING THE CURRENT APPROVED FORM.

None the less, if you would like to help me tweak this form so that it could be useable in the future then please follow the below instructions:

1.) Download this Excel Spreadsheet.  This spreadsheet is the marking template.  Use the template spreadsheet exactly as it is set up.  If you change any of the headings rows or columns it will render the spreadsheet useless.

2.) Once you have completed filling out the template spreadsheet follow this screencast (w/audio) step by step for uploading to GoogleDocs. The above screencast will also show you how to publish an RSS feed from the document.  TO NOTE: this RSS feed must be a “cell” rss feed so the data can be sliced and diced in multiple way so that it is exposed on the backend system to multiple outputs.  Eventually, I’ll enable it for just the simple url for the SS, for now please just make sure you are exposing the right RSS feed.

3.) Once you have the RSS feed go to this form and fill it out.  Job done, well then there is a lot of back end processing that takes place to parse your spreadsheet into the various forms it needs to go to as part of the next step in the marking workflow.

Resources used in this work:

• http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=75507y
• jQuery and the joy of arrays

Independent UK Hardware Review of HTC Magic (Vodaphone) vs HTC G1 (T-Mobile)

Having fun with FlipCam lead to this quick side by side review of my G1 Android vs my partner’s new Magic Android (though if I had a mirror I could be doing the review using the new camcorder built into Magic, which auto pushes to YouTube as well).

In short, if you are looking to get a phone right now (May 2009) then the Magic outshines anything on the market (I am of course biased in favour of a open source operating system but my partner is not) and this is why she choose the Magic over the iPhone:

• Cheaper! £35 per month vs £45 for same tarriff/use.
• Battery Life! This was my biggest concern considering the G1, and thus far (two days in) the battery has lasted over eight hours on each charge and that is with us using the 3G continually to pull down new apps and muck about using the 3G between the two phones (IMing one another and sending pics/videos).
• Shorter Contract! 2 year contact for O2 iPhone (this is truly is an eternity in mobile technology considering the jump we have already seen from version 1 Android to version 2 <- can’t wait til my contract runs out to get v3!) vs. 12 month Vodaphone contract (aka will get two free phones in the same amount of time you one have your one iPhone).
• Smaller! What I would call the handbag factor, this will fit in one of those small pockets in the front of  your purse or a  front jean poket (do not keep in back pocket <- it is how I cracked my screen on the G1).  Also I’ll take another quick jab at my iPhone friends who can’t run multiple apps at the same time: which actually means more screen real-estate to get stuff done on the go than that giant black and silver brick!
• Sexier! Honestly I had my partner hold an iPhone and the Magic side by side and she liked how much lighter and less sharp the corners where on Magic.  She also thought the white Magic was more “Apple” like than the black shiny iPhone? <- go figure?
• Insurance bargain! Honestly get the business insurance from Vodaphone for an extra £3 per month, it means you can walk into the store at any time and they will hand you a new one on the spot (almost no questions).  I have my bank insurance and it is a nightmare, hence me not getting my cracked screen fixed yet.
• No proprietary plugs! There is a miniSD slot which means the storage can be increased and it uses USBmini to plug everything in, which means we can share our headsets and power plugs let alone ease of plugging into computer (and not paying fortunes for replacements).
• Ethical computing! <–! Last but certainly not least (IMHO)–> In an age of global financial crisis and corporate bastardising the technology we decide to spend our money on says a lot for how we want the world to turn out for the next generation.  In my opinion using an Open Source phone (like Android) says you want a world where we as a global community decide what we want, NOT one where a company decides how we want it.  Choice is yours, but this phone proves without a doubt that you can have both the ethical openness of Open Source while still having all the functionality and services of a proprietary company.  Truly, this could be the first time Open Source is the top of the stack and I can only hope it will stay this way (for a month or two anyways

Podcast notes: Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical, free software and wealth creation

Podcast notes: Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical, free software and wealth creation

Originally uploaded by dff.jisc

itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3994.html

* The stimulus of innovation is disclosure: not only saying what but
how we created the innovation
* how can we drive innovation faster?
** architect platform to be extensible and imbeddable, e.g. mozilla addons
** platform tolerance, must embrace our enemies (windows) to embrace
all humans, be benevolentt
** bring in fresh blood, it is not neccessarily the core that makes
things happen
* methodology and software development processes
** purpose of methodology is to harness talent
** aggregate development by building interest
** agile for community (not pair prog) by phil oconnor
** architect by community and collaboration
* permission free development to enable web services
** tools must interoperate over the web, eg bugzilla, trac, launchpad
** branching should be enabled to any commmunity
* change in innovation drives economics
** economic models: advertisement, hardware providers pay for
innovation… not likely
** pay for service provision?
* can a community create the cutting edge experience… better than Apple?
** "we should be building software that helps it users get laid"
* conical investing in a beautiful experience.

Podcast notes: IT conversations, Anne Thomas Manes, ‘Is SOA Dead’

Podcast notes: IT conversations, Anne Thomas Manes, ‘Is SOA Dead’

Originally uploaded by dff.jisc

itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail4004.html

* We have been doing "Service Oriented Integration" which has been
focused on integration rather than architecture
* Intel paper on IT business valuation for metrics that effect bottom
line: how many people, how many hours, etc
* biggest impediment to SOA is cultural and political, not technological
** the question for those not obsessed with technology is: what is
going to increase bottm line?
* business managers and leaders won’t understand SOA, developers are
beginning to understand and so are building it from the bottom up.
SOA itself will very seldom ever happen as a top down political
process.
* we *as humans* suck at architecture.
* enterprise architecture is completly different to application architecture.
** enterprise architecture is about reducing cost.

Repository Road

Repository Road

Originally uploaded by davidflanders

Came accross this the other day, I’m sure it will show up in many
presentations from hence forward.

CRIG Awards Dinner

Dear CRIG,

We would like to cordially invite each of you to a 5* Awards Dinner on Thursday night February 12th at the stunning Court Restaurant atop the British Museum Reading Rooms.

If we could ask you to please RSVP at the below link. Also prior to RSVPing could you consider whom to nominate for the award of “exemplary innovation in the community” (the nomination is part of the RSVP form).

http://is.gd/ey8P

Also as part of the developerHappinessDays event (Feb 9-13th), there will be a final CRIG barcamp on Friday (13th) at Birkbeck college where lead developers for EPrints, DSPace, FedoraCommons and Microsoft will be present to discuss the latest advancement in repository innovation. If you would like to attend this day please sign up for dev8D below and select the “roll your own day” and put down “repository summit”:

http://www.dev8d.org/book.html

Hope to see you all there.

Kind Regards,

CRIG Support Team

CRM Analytics Tool: The Pareto Picker Tool

A basic introduction to the CRM4UNI project can be found here.  We are an Open Source Higher Education project working on the creation of Analytics tools for University Business and Administrative Departments.

This post is intended to help further specify the process undertaken to develop the Pareto Analytics tool.   We hope this information will help inform other projects creating customised analytics tools for Universities for sharing of these tools can occur openly and freely.  We feel the Pareto tool is the first of seven requisite tools that need to be created to focus Higher Education in quality engagement with the business community: which include the histogram,  check sheet, control chart, cause-and-effect diagram, flowchart, and scatter diagram.

User Case for Pareto Analytics Tool:

Glossary of Terms:

• BRD= Business Relations Department
• User = Team of Business Relations Manager in BRD
• End User = Student
• HE = Higher Education
• Organisation = Business
• Institution = Universities

User Description:  Within the University is the Business Relations Department (BRD) made up of ten individuals (1 team manager, 6 business relation managers and 4 part time staff).  It is the core Business Relations team that will be using this tool, however it will also be used by senior executives in the University to help visualise the overall effect of the department with the business community.  The primary user team (business relationship managers) are on average 30-50 years of age, they are use to communicating with clients via email (outlook) and analog telephone.  They have used a CRM system before and understand the value it can bring to their team, however individual client relationships are where they place the most value.  This tool will ideally help team members realise the benefits of entering data into the system so that more fruitful business relationship strategies can be informed.

The primary aim of this tool is to help manifest discussion within the University -via the BRD- on creating bespoke learning packages for the surrounding business community.  To accomplish this the BRD will be required to put data within the CRM on the following:

• List of organisation and personal contact details within those organisations
• Amount of money spent by organisation and individuals for organisations with the local HE institution
• Further data on the kind of human relationship that the HE institution has with individual business organisations and their employees

The above types of data are up to the Business Team to find, input and organise.

Overall context of process for using the Pareto Tool:

1. The BRD collects data from other departments within the University (usually a manual process of requesting data in the form of Excel Spreadsheets).  The team hopes to move an automatic process once templates are set up declaring mapped elements.
2. Data is processed into SugarCRM by BRD CRM Manager: CRM template for data input is created declaring mapped data fields for organistation name and associated individual contacts, special attention is paid to mapping any fields with associated financial numbers relating to the organisational spendings in relation to the institution.
3. Once requisite data is within the CRM, analytics tool GETs data from SugarCRM via ReSTful API.  Data retrieved include organisational and individual contact titles/names and all associated financial spending numbers to each of those contacts/organisations.
4. The Pareto tool renders this data as color coded bar graph (SugarCRM dashlet), with each bar representing an organisation and the colors within the bar representing the different individuals or cost descriptions (see interface 1 below).
5. The Pareto Tool then analyses the total organisational spending  (”bars”) displaying the top ~10 organisations within a visual bar chart interface, with Pareto “curve” drawn through top 20% organisational bars.
6. The user is then able to click on anyone of the color coded segements of the bar to view more detailed view of the organisation and the relations of the institution to that organisation (see interface 2 below):
7. The BRD team meet on a regular basis to look at this chart and click on various colors within the bars to see if there is further data that could be collected to help inform a business engagement strategy, e.g. BRD is able to identify organisation who regularly send employees on training courses and so BRD brings the appropriate college staff together to offer a bespoke certificate aimed at that business organisation.

Project Pitch: Global Dominant Resource Types “Study”

Basic idea for the project would be this:

A project/study looking at ReST based architectures and the resources that were coming to dominate them globally (not just in Academia), e.g. what is the typical image resource across Flickr, Kodak EasyShare, Bit Bucket, Facebook, etc.

The idea for the study is to break the globe up into the big bandwidth regions (North America, Europe, Australasia) and to have a local regional researcher observe and collect data about what have come to be the dominant resource types: images, video, audio, slides, etc (along with the metadata that comprises these resource types – a kind of “Resource Application Profile” something like a WADL but describing resources and for humans).

The regional researchers would work separately (in their own way) for six months collecting data as they saw fit (the project would aggregate this data: feeds, posts, emails, etc) and then at the end of the six months meet up at some big conference to discuss their findings as a panel. The more prestigious the researchers the better.

The final output of the project would be a recommendation for the way the Academic domain should be utilizing the already established ubiquitous resource types that the globe has established, i.e. make your video resources like YouTube video resources!

Conclusion of project: embrace the web.  That and it would be nice to know what resources are the dominant ones (qualitatively) as the next study could then target the resources we think are becoming globally ubiquitous and then programmitcally count (quantitatively) their existence on the web (via crawler inputting data into BigTable/Hadoop as part of a Cloud super cluster running for a couple of days).

Do you want faster horses or do you want unicorns?

If you would like to listen to this post in the author’s own voice, then click here.

“If I’d asked people what they wanted, they’d have said ‘faster horses’ “ (Henry Ford)

O’Reilly’s recent post on “Faster Horses” speaks of where the great leaps in mankind’s innovation have come from; basically citing Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, The Wright Brothers, and other 21st century innovators in the great steps they have taken individually on behalf of mankind.  He goes on to ask -along with others- where our next great innovations will come from:

“Where is our patent office today? Who is our Einstein? Are we the first generation in many years incapable of true innovation?”

I would agree that the greatest ideas of the web are yet to be realised, however it is not our imagination holding us back nor is it for lack of brilliant inventor-developers; what has destroyed the bright future of our generation is not the number of genius’ we’ve created but rather the consumer culture that requires every innovative step along the way to be copyrighted!  It is simple, we know the future, we have the vision, we even have the technology in place to do all we dream of; but, we are not allowed to put together the parts that will invent the next light bulb, car or airplane! The Wright Brothers did not have to request permission for the copyrighted rotation of a propeller, Ford did not check the moral rights of the throttle, and Edison did not have to request biomedical permission to use the chemicals in a filament!  And yet here were are waiting for the legal legislation that will allow us to create an application for a gradebook app or use the code for the citation of public works.

In short, we have becomes victims of consumer culture.  O’Reilly’s post laments what we have not achieved: the cure to aids, the flying electrical cars, the online doctor, the robots that stop starvation, the new media, art and culture… all of these innovation we were promised as the next generation, have been squashed because of the copyright laws held up by: biomedical conglomerates, publishing corporations and companies like Disney who want to sell you ideas that they stole off of someone else.  It is time for a manifesto that stands on the shoulders of giants; it is time that our generation stopped pandering to the greed of consumption.  Where is our ideology that will hail a new era of factual logic: where is our “congito ergo sum”, our “know thyself”, our “one step for man, one giant leap for mankind”?!

A proposed solution: never in my lifetime have we needed more, a proof of pure logic!  Philosophers, theorists and especially mathematicians lend me your ears!  It is time that a new Riemann’s theorem gauntlet be laid down to disprove the ownership of original ideas.  Pure logic must answer this call: a mathematical proof that can demonstrate that no idea is original, that all ideas are built upon one another and that no single idea is definitive in time, space or mass that it would deserve to either belong or be worth value to any one entity.  Honestly, I’m begging the philosophers and mathematicians to earn their eternal reputation and glory: destroy copyright as we know it!  Give us this freedom and we will give you innovation as you have never known: faster horses than you ever imagined, and hell well even thrown in a couple of unicorns!  It is time that we set our inventors free from the slavery of copyright.