Goodbye, Kodachrome

After more than 70 years as the benchmark of color transparency photography, Kodak's iconic Kodachrome film will be retired. The company is ceasing production of the film, which now accounts for only a fraction of one percent of Kodak's still-picture film sales, in an era where film sales are increasingly being pushed aside by digital photography. There is presently only one lab on the planet that processes Kodachrome.

With my first 35mm camera, a boxy, 1940s-vintage Argus C3 bought used in 1972 for $20 from a camera shop, I cut my teeth on amateur photography, shooting roll after roll of Kodachrome. I still have many of those slides today, and the color is still spectacular. The fine-grained detail and color reproduction accuracy of Kodachrome was, and still is, without peer.

Interestingly, the film is actually exposed in black and white. Only through a complex process are the three primary colors then integrated into the exposed images, rendering Kodachrome's true colors. The complexity of this process is the reason so few labs were able to develop the film, the last remaining one being in Parsons, Kansas.

It's the end of an era. Kodachrome will be missed by many. I think I'll go listen to some Paul Simon.

Stretching the useful lifespan of an older PC.

With the effects of the recession sinking in the minds of consumers, many people are foregoing the purchase of new computer gear and opting to hold on to their older PCs. Others may find bargains in used equipment, rather than laying out more money for new stuff. And unless you are a "power user" with plans to use your system for intensive applications like video editing, gaming, etc., you might be pleasantly surprised at what you can do with a computer that's a few years old or even older yet.

I had purchased a new PC just last year which suits my needs quite well. But I held on to my previous system, a Gateway machine that I bought back in 2001. Yes, an eight-year-old system with a 950MHz processor, 768MB RAM and a couple 60GB hard drives. Hardly the epitome of performance. Yet I was amazed at what I could do with that old PC after I dragged it out of storage recently.

I could have simply set it up as a terminal on a home network, but I was more interested in finding out what this ancient computer could do on its own. I probably couldn't give it away on Craigslist. But it still had some usefulness that I was willing to find.

I had previously wiped the hard drives clean and repartitioned them. I reinstalled Windows XP and went from there. For those who wish to avoid Windows, and have a knack for experimenting a bit, there is the free Ubuntu Linux operating system. I personally find Ubuntu rather awkward and clunky, but many others have taken the time to really learn it. Nevertheless, Ubuntu is quite powerful, and worth considering.

My next step was to install all the necessary and useful applications - without spending any money, of course. This is very easy to do with the availability of good, free open-source software (FOSS). The choices are many, and you won't have trouble locating good ones. Here are my choices:

Browser: Mozilla Firefox. Free, powerful and versatile, with better security features than IE. But you may want to consider Google's excellent Chrome browser, which is fast and lean. Chrome puts a very light footprint on system resources, important when optimizing an older, slower machine. For an email client, Mozilla's Thunderbird is an excellent, free alternative to Outlook.

Now that our system is online, the next step is downloading and installing security applications. I like AVG antivirus, which is incredibly powerful for a free app. Zonelabs' free ZoneAlarm firewall is a must if you want to step up to a better firewall than the basic Windows offering. Don't forget anti-spyware protection. Ad-Aware provides excellent protection for this and is updated frequently. This trifecta of freebie apps should provide reasonably solid protection.

Don't want to shell out hundreds for MS-Office? No problem, as the free OpenOffice.org suite does just about everything Office does. The interface and menus of OOO are very similar to those in Office. It is a bit of a system hog, though nowhere near as bloated as MS-Office.

There are free alternatives for all the other applications you will want. WinAmp is a good choice for media player. Irfanview is an outstanding graphics editor. You can find numerous other open-source apps and utilities at CNET downloads and Source Forge.

With just an afternoon of tinkering I was able to get my old PC up and running with a decent arsenal of useful applications. I now have a nice, older PC that I can give to a friend or family member who needs one.

In these tight economic times, home and small business users who want to get online and get some work done can really stretch out the useful life of their PCs and defer buying new gear for a while. It is do-able and only requires a little time.

If you're going to do something illegal, don't go into a nearby bar and brag about it later.

Last week the local news outlets here in the Twin Towns were abuzz over an incident wherein a man parachuted off the 440-foot tall Foshay Tower in downtown Minneapolis. Actually, BASE jumping occurs more often than you think here, as there are plenty of sufficiently tall structures to choose from. But in this instance the parachutist got caught. He got caught because that evening he thought it would be a brilliant idea to show off his exploits on video to a number of patrons at a local bar. But not just any bar. The bar at the W Hotel, located on the first floor of the aforementioned Foshay Tower. A bar employee called police, and well, the rest becomes history.

USPTO to start charging "practitioner maintenance fees" for registered patent attorneys and agents.

It was bound to happen eventually, and with the hubbub within the patent law community and from the USPTO the past few years, it doesn't come as a surprise to me. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will begin assessing an annual "practitioner maintenance fee" from all registered patent attorneys and agents, something they had been kicking around for about 5 years and finally codified this month.

The fees, which will be $118 per year for active practitioners, and $25 for those wishing to be placed on inactive status, will go directly to the USPTO's costs of maintaining the roster of attorneys and agents, and to help cover the costs of things like mailings, publications, and other services to practitioners.

Much as I'd rather not part with another chunk of money, I don't have a problem with the fees. Every other state and federal bar (that I know of) charges its admitted attorneys some sort of fee for them to remain admitted to practice. The Patent and Trademark Office should be no different.

While I haven't practiced in patent prosecution in over 4 years, I will stay admitted to that bar because (1) I never know what kind of case may land in my lap tomorrow, and (2) I busted my butt and wracked my brain to pass that PTO exam. I'm not letting that go just to save what amounts to a couple dinners out each year.

The remaining unknown here: will the PTO add a continuing education element as well? That idea has also been mulled over in the IP community, and it's an idea that I do not support.

I am not convinced that requiring patent CLEs will necessarily change the equation in that practice community. Most, if not all of the patent practitioners I know are quite fastidious about keeping up-to-date on changes in the law and other issues surrounding their practice. I might go so far as to say that patent people are, as a general rule, a bit fanatical about staying on the bleeding edge here. Patent prosecution is extremely specific, and the professionals in that field drill down deep. Secondly, attorneys in most states must already fulfill a CLE requirement there. Patent practitioners will naturally round out their state requirement by gravitating toward patent-related CLEs. It's not unusual for many attorneys to fulfill their state requirement by loading up with almost an entirety of patent coursework.

Thus, adding a PTO-level CLE requirement seems redundant and I fail to see the added value that such a requirement would bring, other than to line the pockets of the people who promote those courses.

Pet peeve: Drive-by networking.

I pulled the plug on my LinkedIn account. I started it rather reluctantly over a year ago, when a colleague sent me an invite. From there, it became more of a nuisance than a realistic networking tool. I will explain why.

Let me start off by saying that LinkedIn is a great tool for people who make a concerted effort to build their network of connections and cultivate those connections. The site enabled me, at first, to reconnect with a few old friends and former coworkers, people I now keep in touch with via email and in person. However, the whole LinkedIn experience never really materialized for me, despite my best efforts. I started receiving numerous invites from various people who seemed to be merely collecting contacts. Drive-by networkers.

I can spot the drive-bys on two counts. First, the invite would come with only the default "(name) would like to add you to his/her LinkedIn network" blurb. Nothing to personalize the invite, nothing to pique my curiosity or entice me to want to learn more. Not even a simple "Hi, Kevin!" Second, no response to my reply. When I would approve the contact, I would always reply with a short note, usually asking what this person is doing nowadays. Yet no response.

Sometimes I would receive invites from people at the second or even third degree of separation - friends of friends and so forth. People I vaguely know or don't know at all. I would still shoot a brief reply, inquiring about the person. Again, no reply. A missed opportunity for that person to cultivate a relationship, to build a "tribe" of like-minded people who will actually remember the initial outreach.

I am puzzled as to why people would take the time to seek others out in a social network, only to let the contacts wither on the vine from the get-go. It simply doesn't make sense. Why invest the time to add someone to your list if you don't really want to say something to them? It's not that these drive-by networkers are too busy to make an effort. After all, they seem to have sufficient free time to surf those sites looking for names in the first place. Perhaps it's the desire of some people to appear popular - to have a network of 100, or 1000, or even 10,000 "contacts." Whatever strokes their egos or gives them something to talk about over cocktails.

Before the internet and the advent of social networks, we had Rolodexes and little black books. Those were filled with names and contact info of people we met in person or over the phone. Friends, business associates, classmates, customers and clients. Today, all that is required to populate one's database is to point and click. While I embrace technology that enables this, there still needs to be a human element. Otherwise, all you have is a list.

I don't need a directory of names. That sort of thing is easily found online or from my colleges' alumni associations. I don't care to build a collection of 1000 people with whom I have no contact. I would much prefer a tight-knit network of people who share common interests and are willing to communicate (even if sparingly) with one another. If you want me to join your group, say something. Break the ice and I'm in. If you want to contact me directly, send an email and I'll write back. But if you are just scraping names off the internet, count me out.

A recommended blog.

I'm normally not a big fan of the usual "self-help" and "motivational" materials - seen it all before. Lots of books, seminars and sites replete with trite cliches, sloganeering and buzzword corporatespeak. Been there, done that.

That said, I have found a great motivational blog I subscribe to and read every day. It's Seth's Blog, which is aimed primarily at the marketing crowd, but his postings offer something we all can use as professionals. Godin is different. He won't tell you how to accomplish or how to set your goals. It's more thought-provoking than that. He talks about things like finding and building "tribes" to direct your attention and business to, not just "markets" in the usual sense. He observes the world around him, noting how people act and interact and then distills this observation of human nature into innovative marketing concepts. Seth gives you a little morsel of human nature and lets you chew on it a while.

This not your typical motivator site. It gives you a different take on some aspect of the world and lets you "take it from there."

My kind of motivation.

My Nikon D60 is working out great.

Last month I ordered a Nikon D60 digital SLR kit with a Nikkor 18-55mm zoom lens on sale for under $600 from Amazon. While only having dabbled with the camera so far, and not yet having the opportunity to really put it through its paces, the camera has nevertheless worked like a champ.
Rock-solid yet lightweight with lots of features, including 10 MP format, 3-area AF sensor, sensor cleaning system, 3fps continuous shooting, superb resolution and dynamic range, good color reproduction, sharp kit lens, low shutter lag, SDHC (>2GB) memory support, in-camera retouching, fast auto-focus, crisp 2.5" LCD display, and high-capacity Li-Ion battery, are just some of the things that make this a great entry-level DSLR.

I can't wait for the trees to turn colors for some nice fall photo ops. All I need is a good telephoto zoom lens and I'll be set.

Cheers.

Businesses: addressing the big customer dissatisfactions.

As a consumerist with some disposable income, I'm quick to notice whether the glass is half-full or half-empty when dealing with various businesses. I just expressed the half-full side, demonstrating my continued admiration of the Neptune Cafe Italiana, in a brief article I posted today.

However, if I am rubbed the wrong way by a merchant, I am just as apt to pan the place. I've done that a few times, and it ain't pretty. I'm not talking about an otherwise good company's occasional bad-hair day. Benefit of the doubt is best in those instances. What I'm referring to is when something is really wrong in the way a merchant has handled things. It can be some comedy of errors where the place has committed one blunder after another. Or perhaps its just one particularly glaring problem. I've ranted a bit on this sort of thing before. I vote with my feet: torque me off and I will not come back.

Today I spotted an excellent blog article by Seth Godin that really hit it on the head. It essentially asks: what is the one thing that is most in need of fixing? Good question, but will the business owner or manager be astute enough to recognize it in the first place? As the old saying goes, knowing your problem is only half the battle. And if they do recognize the problem, will they get past their egos and preconceived notions to effectively tackle the problem?

From time to time I try to apply an inward-looking philosophy to my own law practice and ask myself if I am doing something that really needs to be fixed. Is there something I am doing that really puts off clients? One must really have their ear to the ground to determine this. Listen to your customers, your clients. Be aware, understand their concerns. Above all, listen. It's something that all professionals should do if we want to minimize our deficiencies.

Cheers.

If you don't have knowledge of a subject, don't try to convince us that you do.

As an attorney, I am often asked for advice by clients. We're in the advice business--it's what we do. Sometimes I am asked about an issue in which my knowledge base is...well...somewhat lacking. What to do? Fess up my absence of knowledge on the subject, or simply punt by offering up some speculative response?

I am sometimes amazed (and amused) at the number of people who, in the course of conversation, will paint themselves into a corner in their attempt to impress others with their "knowledge" of topics they know little about. Be it law, medicine, technology, whatever, the scenario is the same.

While waiting for an attorney meeting to begin one day a couple years back, I observed a colleague telling a story about how Coca-Cola had a "lifetime patent" on their cola product, one that had been "continuously renewed since the 1880s." She asserted that some kind of special exception had been carved out for them by the Patent and Trademark Office. Holding back my urge to burst out laughing, I interjected that this was a mere urban legend, a tired old saw that had been debunked ages ago (the formula is actually a trade secret). Yet the attorney, who was not a patent practitioner, remained adamant in defending her silly position. The fact that I was a patent attorney did not faze her in the least; she was so intent on being "right" that she continued to clutch this defective argument like a dog with a bone. As with the Emperor and his imaginary set of clothes, she seemed to truly believe in the foolish story she was telling. She would not let go, and I simply gave up. It wasn't worth the trouble, and the meeting was about to start anyway. The other attorneys rolled their eyes and smiled.

I had to think: would she do the same with a client? With a client who might--gasp!--rely upon such advice? Is being "right" from the very beginning more important than serving the interests of the client with well-planned, thoughtful advice? As attorneys, we are conditioned to "win the argument." We want to be perceived as omniscient in the eyes of those we serve. Sometimes we become so fixated on that goal that we blindly ignore the facts. This can give rise to dangers.

If the impromptu advice you toss to the client turns out to be wrong, and your client or someone else calls you out on it, you look like an unprepared fool. This is the best case scenario, and the harm to the client is minimal, if not the harm to your reputation. At worst, when nobody catches the bad advice, your client actually follows it and gets into trouble. Better make sure your malpractice premiums are paid up.

I'll offer another anecdote.

Back in my engineering days, not long after I had graduated, I interviewed for an electrical engineering position with an electronics manufacturer. The V.P. of engineering took me to lunch, quizzing me about my engineering training, experience and knowledge. He then abruptly changed the subject. "What's the current price of steel," he inquired. Caught off-guard momentarily, I wasn't sure how to approach the seemingly irrelevant question. This inquiry came from a person who was near the top of the corporate foodchain, and he expected an answer right then and there. I responded that I really didn't know, and that the answer might depend on many factors. He pressed me a bit. I reiterated my ignorance of the subject, but stated that I could look it up and have an answer for him. The conversation moved on to other topics, and the interview went well overall. I got the job.

Shortly after I started, that same V.P. took me to lunch again as a welcome gesture, and told me why I was hired over the 3 or 4 other candidates, all of whom were highly qualified. He said I was the only candidate who didn't try to offer "some bullshit story" (his words) in response to his price-of-steel question. In filling the engineering position, this veep didn't want to hire a poseur who shoots from the hip, he wanted someone who would carefully research each problem. That little lesson has stayed with me since and it applies to every profession.

Faced with a client's inquiry of a problem or issue for which my knowledge is limited, my answer is and always will be: "I don't know but I will research it and we will go from there." It's not the time to be Cliff Clavin. When the stakes are high, and they usually are, there is no shame in admitting ignorance. It's also an opportunity to demonstrate to the client a willingness to go the extra mile with diligence, to get the facts straight. If it turns out that the answer involves something beyond my resources or my abilities, then I must seek co-counsel or refer the client to another practitioner. Nothing less will do.

Cheers.

Finished scanning my slides...finally!

A few weeks ago I gave a preliminary report in this blog of the Plustek slide scanner. I can now say--some 800 scans later--that the scanner worked reasonably well. While not a professional-quality instrument, it did OK for my "hobbyist" needs. I will add that Photoshop or some other good photo editing program is a necessity, as the scanner's bundled software is crude at best. Many of the scans required color adjustment (a bit too much magenta), with others needing some tweaks of brightness and contrast.

A blower brush is another necessity, as dust invariably clings to the transparencies. Cotton swabs (the high-quality ones on the long wooden sticks, not Q-Tips) are indispensable for gently removing stubborn bits of dust and lint and for wiping off mold. Just don't attempt to remove debris from the emulsion (back) side, as it can be easily damaged. Better to remove such spots using Photoshop. You can use a can of compressed air for dust removal, but be very careful not to damage your slides with the high-pressure blast. Despite my best efforts to extricate contaminants, I still found myself using the dust/scratch removal function of PS quite a bit.

I now have several gigabytes of scanned images from 35mm slides I had shot in the 1970s and 1980s. The images look good and I'm glad I took the time to preserve them before they became irreversably deteriorated. It took up several evenings of my free time, but the job is now complete. I have posted selected images on one of my sites for your perusal.

Cheers.