...On The Hat Trick (November 2004)

The Backscatter article is exciting and a worthy observation, but while the "tyranny of choice" is related to the standards issue, it is more than that. It is also the result of the competitive need for companies to keep adding features, or enhancements in existing features, to capture market share. Even if each product used interchangeable standards, this need would exist. We are truly in a global marketplace where the driving forces are "better" products, brought to the marketplace "faster" than competitors at a "cheaper" price. Among other things, one result is a "tyranny of choice" for the customer.

— Vern Johnson
IEEE Member
Tuscon, Arizona

***

On Black-on-Black Design (June 2004)

I enjoyed your recent Backscatter column on confusing product design. It turns out that the IEEE is addressing one aspect of this large problem — confusing and inconsistent power controls. IEEE P1621 ™ (currently being balloted) covers standards for the power control user interface — primarily terms, symbols, and indicator lights relevant to power states. The content is not rocket science — and in general tries to stick with what is already common and clear on products — but it does provide a useful starting point.

Crafting the standard has been several years in the making, and the challenge now is how to get greater awareness of it. See: http://eetd.LBL.gov/Controls.

— Bruce Nordman
IEEE Member
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, Calif.

***

…On Innovation and Productivity (October 2004)

I think that innovation is a major source of productivity in America. It is the reason I am in software engineering.

— Ivan Gibbs
IEEE Member
Reno, Nev.

***

…On Software Piracy (October 2004)

While I agree that the use of unauthorized copies of software isn't a good example of fair play, I think that the use of the term “piracy” is unfair, too. Apart from the fact that real pirates harm people, the biggest target of this software duplication practice is Microsoft, the same firm that nearly put the market competitors off with this practice. Apple, for instance, didn’t act this way; its software wasn’t usefully duplicable. Microsoft “suffers” from “stealing,” but their market become bigger every day. I think (Microsoft) should think about its own contribution to the problem (instead of) crying so loudly.

And about the notion that China is deaf to owners’ intellectual property rights, I think that every nation making the transition from “developing” to “developed” acts this way; even the United States did. Maybe this isn’t the right way to act, but it’s not fair to criticize, when the United States hasn’t even (owned up to) its own past.

— Franco Favento
IEEE Member
Trieste, Italy

***

…On Offshoring (October 2004)

”Offshoring” is the continuing result of the wage and price controls put in place furing World War II, when companies used so-called “benefits” because the government prohibited the free market of pay for work. I would prefer to work “at will” for a straight hourly wage, just like the lawyers who manage to work 36 hours a day.

— Donald Brown
IEEE Member
Brookfield, Mo.

***

The article unfairly blames other nations for the United States’ outsourcing problems. It is the U.S. companies that want to outsource and offshore jobs to increase their profit margins — by cutting employee benefits they have to pay in the United States. Expensive U.S. labor costs are not the making of other nations. The author gives a ludicrous example that an Indian worker would work inefficiently even though he/she knows a better way; further, he attributes this to cultural differences. I am surprised that the IEEE has allowed such things to be published. This is a shame.

— Bala Lakshminarayanan
IEEE Student Member
Knoxville, Tenn.

***

…On Intellectual Property Fundamentals (November 2004)

This article did not address the main problem of the working engineer: which “intellectual property” is the individual’s and which is the employeer's. Today, many companies force employees to sign confidentiality agreements, which are almost “slave-labor” contracts, as a condition of employment. It would be instructive to know the legal limits of such contracts.

— Joseph Elliott
IEEE Member
O’Fallon, Ill.

***

…On Tissue Engineering and Stem Cell Research (November 2004)

This article contained useful information, but I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Apparently, the author believes that obtaining jobs for engineers trumps any ethical considerations, since he made no attempt to resolve ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research and yet concluded that we must lobby to promote it. A bias pervades the article. The author used the word “unfortunately” to describe the President’s limits on federal funding. The article states that embryonic stem cells have more potential than other stem cells. Presently, this statement is an opinion, not a fact, and successes to date suggest the opposite may be true.

— Barry Burgess
IEEE Member
Huntsville, Ala.

***

 

---