Perl, MySQL, and Mac OS X

I use MySQL, Perl, and PHP running on Mac OS X for various projects. When I install an operating system update, the Perl/MySQL link invariably breaks, as the packages necessary to connect the two aren’t installed on Mac OS X by default. Instead of googling the fix every time I update, I figured I’d post it here for future reference.

1. Download and install XCode from Apple’s website (v.3.2.6) or the App Store.


2. Download the header files for the built-in version of MySQL from Apple’s website (here’s a link to the support article for 10.6 Server). Note that this is installed using the command-line tool tar, rather than double-clicking the archive file you download.


3. Run CPAN to install DBI and its dependencies by executing the command sudo perl -MCPAN -e ‘install DBI’ .


4. Download a version of DBD::mysql and expand it to a source directory somewhere (such as ~/src/).


5. Open the MySQL Support page “2.4.5. Using the Bundled MySQL on Mac OS X Server”, which identifies the locations of files in the bundled MySQL version that comes with Mac OS X Server.


6. Execute perl Makefile.PL from the source directory mentioned above without any flags, which will give you the default settings. This will error out because the MySQL header file locations are wrong (this is why I haven’t been able to figure out how to use CPAN to install DBD::mysql).


7. Execute perl Makefile.PL again, this time substituting the header file locations on the MySQL page referenced above for the —cflags, —lib, and —testsocket flags. Remember to copy the remaining system-dependent defaults for the —cflags and —lib flags. You may need to change other flags as well, depending on your installation. (For instance, on Mac OS X 10.6 server, the command I used was: perl Makefile.PL —cflags ‘-I/usr/include/mysql -fno-omit-frame-pointer    -pipe   -D_P1003_1B_VISIBLE -DSIGNAL_WITH_VIO_CLOSE -DSIGNALS_DONT_BREAK_READ -DIGNORE_SIGHUP_SIGQUIT’ —libs=’-L/usr/lib/mysql -lmysqlclient -lz -lm’ —testuser=test —testsocket=’/var/mysql/mysql.sock’ “).


8. Execute make, make test, and sudo make install as you normally would.

This should get MySQL and Perl talking to each other using the bundled Mac OS X MySQL package.

High-tech patent cold war — Let the arms race begin

Google recently lost a bid to buy Nortel’s patent portfolio in bankruptcy, and it is disappointed with the results. Google blames the patent system for increasing costs of its Android platform and generally stifling innovation.

Google’s complaints are especially interesting considering President Obama’s recent speeches on how America’s government needs to promote innovation to compete with the rest of the world (and he’s right — the Constitution tells us that patents are supposed to “promote progress of science and the useful arts”). These speeches implied that individual inventors and startup companies can help bring us out of our current economic woes by creating jobs at new (and mainly small) businesses.

From a historical perspective, Google is still a startup company; it was formally incorporated in 1998. Assume that Google began applying for patents when its founders created their first search engine in 1996 — those patents would not have expired yet, since patents last 20 years after the date of filing. This means that Google is a relative newcomer to the patent game, but has 15 years’ experience as a startup company for whom the patent system is supposed to promote innovation.

And what is Google telling us from its position of experience? That the patent system is not geared towards promoting innovation by startup companies. What’s to blame, according to Google? First, the patent system itself, since it is geared towards large corporations who can afford to invest millions of dollars and years of time toward procuring and enforcing patents. A patent, at its very core, is merely the right to exclude someone else from practicing a patented invention — and the only way to exclude someone from doing what they’re doing is to sue them. The average utility patent costs somewhere in the five-figure range and takes 3–4 years to obtain, and the average patent infringement lawsuit costs at least a million dollars. What startup company or small business do you know of that can pay a million dollars for a patent infringement lawsuit?

Second, Google complains the patent system is open to exploitation by non-practicing entities (known as “NPEs”, or the less-politically-correct “patent trolls”), who do not actually make and sell innovative products, but instead buy and enforce patents against those who do. Just because a startup or small business has a patent doesn’t mean that it can’t be sued for patent infringement by someone else — products can be, and often are, covered by more than one patent.

What do the pitfalls of the patent system mean for real businesses? Well, there are two general approaches a business can choose to take. First, an industry can elect not to pursue patent protection and compete on the merits of their products. This approach is rare these days, as it is hard for small businesses and startups to attract investment capital without a protectable core product. Second, everyone in the industry can elect to pursue a patent enforcement model. This is the Cold War, mutually-assured destruction model. Since most products in the rapidly evolving high-tech industry are covered by some type of patent, the industry players can extract licensing fees from their competitors, and can resolve patent disputes through some mixture of cross-licensing arrangements, cash payments, and injunctions against future competition. Google’s recent press releases make abundantly clear that while it is playing the patent game, it doesn’t want to be.

Any industry in which one player shifts from the first two the second model will ultimately force all other players in the industry into the second model. Google is a prime example of this. Its press releases following the Nortel patent sale plainly indicate that Google would prefer to compete on the merits of its products, rather than the size of its patent portfolio. That is, Google would rather spent tens of millions per year on research and development of new technology, rather than litigating over old technology. While some portray this as sour grapes, Google is the current poster child for startup companies, so perhaps the architects of our patent system should listen to what it is saying if they truly want to encourage innovation by startups and small businesses.

The Casey Anthony verdict and the burden of proof

Earlier this week, Casey Anthony walked on first-degree murder and child abuse charges, but was convicted of lying to the police. After the verdicts were announced, people took to the Internet to comment on their views about the case.

The comments take two general forms. First, about half of the people think Anthony got away with something due to how long it took Anthony to go to the police, the party pics, and her ever-changing story. The other half thought that the prosecution didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the difference between the two types of comments appears to have roots in the burden of proof.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high standard. It means all 12 people on the jury had to be absolutely convinced that Anthony really murdered her own daughter. From my limited knowledge about the case, which I didn’t follow closely, I understand that the police couldn’t really identify the cause of death because it took a while to discover the poor little girl’s body. This is a sticking point for lots of criminal juries due to the burden of proof. It is a missing piece of knowledge that prevents the jurors from being absolutely convinced that someone is guilty of a crime.

In civil cases, the burden is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Technically, it is called a “preponderance of the evidence,” but all that means is “which explanation is more likely than not?” So, in a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that her story is more likely than not to be true. If the defendant’s view of the case is more believable, or both stories are equally plausible, then the defense wins.

In some civil cases, both sides have experts that testify about the sides’ differing viewpoints. In those cases, the jury simply must decide which expert’s explanation is more believable. Oftentimes, the difference of opinion between experts boils down to which expert is willing to continue learning about new medical research and technologies. We see lots of experts who don’t educate themselves about these things and then testify based on twenty-year-old medical knowledge without any significant effort at continuing education. As a comparison, I wouldn’t want a 1982 computer technician working on my 2008 laptop, even if he is an expert on 1982 computers. I’d rather trust someone with more current knowledge about the subject matter.

In other civil cases, a patient’s doctor testifies about his treatment, and the defense hires an expert (who often has a long track history of testifying against injury victims) to testify that the patient isn’t as hurt as she says she is. Again, the jury has to decide which story is more believable: is the patient tricking the doctor, her coworkers, and her friends and family, or is the well-seasoned defense expert saying what he always says to help the insurance company and its insured escape responsbility?

Finally, there are civil cases where the defense doesn’t even hire an expert to testify. In those cases, the insurance companies try to save a litle money by appealing to juror cynicism. That is, the insurance company lawyer tries to portray the injury victim as a liar, cheat, and fake. Sometimes they accuse the lawyers and doctors of colluding with each other. In this situation, the jury’s task is simply to decide whether the injured person and all her witnesses are telling the truth, or whether the insurance company on the other side is trying to get away with its insured doing something wrong.

One thing that often gets lost in civil trials also deals with the burden of proof. As we’ve written about before, money is the only way our civil justice system allows harm to be corrected. Well, in a civil trial the proper amount of money is the difference between what could have been and what actually is. So the law tells juries that they must award the amount that is more likely than not to put the victim back in the place they were before the harm occurred.

One last thought on the burden of proof. Because the standard isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” in civil cases, that means it’s okay for a juror to have doubts about the case. But, as long as there is less doubt on the victim’s side than on the defense’s side, then the law requires the jury to side with the victim.

Nathan featured in ATLA Docket

Nathan was recently featured in the ATLA Docket, the magazine published by the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association. The article follows the awards ceremony at the 2011 ATLA Convention, at which Nathan received an award as the 2011 Most Outstanding Member of the Young Lawyers' Division, and it details Nathan's qualifications and achievements that led to him receiving the award.

Hot Coffee the Movie: Now on HBO

Earlier this year we reported on the Sundance Film Festival’s world premiere of the movie Hot Coffee, which is a documentary about the McDonald’s hot coffee spill case. As of last night, the movie is now airing on HBO.

The movie delves beyond the quippy one-liners most folks are used to hearing about the case, and instead examines the actual proof presented during the trial. The victim was an elderly woman who suffered burns on her lap so severe she almost died. She had to have skin grafts. During the documentary, the filmaker shows photos and other evidence from the trial to random strangers, who are appalled at the severity of the woman’s injuries.

The case became the butt of jokes not because it was frivolous — the woman’s injuries were far from laughable. No, the case became infamous due to a media propaganda campaign by corporate America to limit our citizen’s access to the judicial system. Powerful lobbyists demonized the lawsuit as the posterchild for runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits in order to limit corporations’ exposure for harms they cause to innocent Americans.

The fact is, our civil justice system only allows one way to fix what can be fixed, to help what can’t be fixed, and to make up for what went wrong: an award of money. And a jury of our peers decides how much money is appropriate in each case. Every jury receives detailed instructions telling it what must be proven for the jury to award money to the injured party.

In the McDonald’s hot coffee case, that amount of money helped pay for the woman’s medical bills, made up for all the time she spent in the hospital and in recovery, and helped provide things she needed to perform her activities of daily living, which she couldn’t do as well after her hospitalization.

Watch the movie for yourself on HBO. After seeing the evidence firsthand, let us know if you still think the McDonald’s hot coffee case was the posterchild for frivolous lawsuits. You might just change your mind.