Another batch of links for your enjoyment. I’m still reading, although we’re moving to a different flat in the next couple of weeks, so there’s likely to be a small gap in gathering these up.
Category: Scholarly Things
Things for D’s research.
Copyright, Patent, and why Software doesn’t fit
I missed an article about Patents in my last “Links” post. Patents are about to become a bigger problem quotes from two historically-significant inventors: Benjamin Franklin and Johannes Salk. With regards to his stove, Ben Franklin refused to enforce his patent, saying:
“That as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.”
Salk, when asked, “Who owns the patent on this vaccine [against Polio]?” replied:
“Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”
In the copyright and patent systems, copyright has to do with “creative works” which include such odd creatures as “graphic designs” and “trademarks” and even concepts. Patent has also to do with concepts, and extends to such nonphysical things as software, which is … distinctly odd, so far as I can see, particularly since software code isn’t really a physical device, and is words; yet software code isn’t really words, it’s a set of instructions, very much like a recipe, and recipes are not protected by either patent or copyright.
For me, the problem in fitting software into either copyright or patent comes down to this: what is “the essence” of what is being protected?
In a copyrighted work, the owner is allowed to sell that work. Now, “that work” is what, exactly? In the case of printed music, “that work” is actually the typography – it is not the notes; after all, how can you copyright notes? In the case of performed music, it is actually any recording made which is subject to copyright, not the performance itself (although there may be restrictions regarding recording, as dictated by other laws, etc.). In the case of a printed work, “that work” is the words themselves and not the typography. These “creative works” are covered by copyright and not by patents. In the case of copyrighted works, what’s protected is a creative work which is an end product constructed by a human being.
Patents cover things: a special typographical process, a special recording device. Patents are similar to copyrights in that they protect the owner for a period of time, with the specific intent that the owner use that time to use the device to make money. Patents, though, should not cover the same types of creative works as copyright; the intent of each system is different. In the case of patented works, patents are issued on the design of a product such that the product which fulfills that design is what is protected from anyone else using that same design. This is where the two systems really differ: copyright is about end products generated by humans, patent is about designs for end products.
So, where does software fit into the picture? Software is patented, currently, so … nobody can copy the same set of instructions as protected by patent. This is where “obvious” comes into play, because software patents should cover source-code (the “design” for the product) and that source-code should not be “obvious” to anyone else in a similar line of work. But when you consider that 1) any given computer language is designed to operate in a certain way and 2) any given task to be performed by an application is very likely to be an “obvious solution” to such a problem, well, how can a patent be issued?
Software patents also don’t seem quite to fit into the “patents” system because frequently the patent granted isn’t upon source-code, but upon higher-level concepts such as “streaming video to a mobile phone.” The source-code never comes into play; rather, the idea is what is being protected, which is quite silly: how can an idea be non-obvious, and how can it be that such patents are issued without detailed designs for making them work (i.e., the source-code)?
Perhaps source-code, which seeks to solve a certain problem, should be granted copyright instead? Well … this comes up against the problem that source-code doesn’t really seem like a creative work in the same way as, say, a novel would. Also, because source-code is subject to a very limited set of grammar and syntax, and is actually a set of instructions for a finished product rather than a finished product in and of itself, source-code seems more like something which would fall under a patent.
However, if source-code is patented, it would need to meet the non-obvious criterion, which it certainly does not.
There’s also the last perversion of the software patent system which is what upsets most: software patents aren’t used to make things for sale which provide income; rather, they are used to prevent others from doing so or to extort massive amounts of cash from those who try.
Software patents should not be valid. Software copyrights should not be, either. Software source-code does not fit into the existing system, period.
In expanding the patent and copyright systems to overlap, the definition of each has been blurred beyond the intent of the terms, and laws have been stretched to “protect” the “owners” of such ideas.
How is it that one can “own” an idea (or a recipe)? Well, one may enslave the people who try to make use of it, or may brutalize them into financial ruin. Such is a very common use of modern copyright and patent law: the suppression of ideas.
-D
Links
Well, folks, so much for the idea of getting these out more frequently, so this is a bit of a long bunch of links. It seems I’m going to need to rethink how I go about putting these links together, or perhaps to find some means of compiling comments simultaneously with saving links, so that it’s easier to get a post together from a bunch of links. I’m not sure where I’ll go with it, but I’ll get around to re-writing the script which aggregates them for me at some point so that I can pull my comments together.
Continue reading “Links”
Links
I’m going to take a bit of a different approach to the links this week, and perhaps from here on out. T. points out that while I share what I find interesting, I’m not actually sharing my opinions of these things. So I’m going to make a bit more of an effort to get these out in smaller batches and to comment upon them as well, rather than simply pointing out one or two really cool links, although please do read Pneumatic logic board made entirely from wood doubles as desk/organ – a wooden computer / musical instrument is just … awesome!
I tend to follow things which are of interest to me as well as following things which are of interest to other people’s research. If there’s something that I’m leaving out which is of interest, please do let me know.
Continue reading “Links”
Links
As usual, lots of stuff about politics, copyright, and privacy. Two articles that fall outside that, though, are of particular interest this week: In 2009, for every $1 of white household wealth, black households had two cents and Anti-Vaccine Doctor Planned to Profit from Scare. They’re not particularly happy articles, but they’re important, I think.
Continue reading “Links”
Links
More Links! If you’re interested in understanding a bit about how “academic studies” and “academic sources” can be twisted to suit political means, have a read of Defeated Videogame-Violence Experts: Science Was on Our Side. The big takeaway there is that not all “academics” are at all equal. In a similar vein, have a read of Local Food or Less Meat? Data Tells The Real Story to get a feeling for what a truly good use of statistics should be like (and an interesting article, of course).
Continue reading “Links”
Links
Lots of “censorship” stories in this week’s links, but also a couple of fun things. Remember the text-based games you played on your ancient computer? Even if you don’t, have a read over Revisiting ‘Zork’: What We Lost in the Transition to Visual Games. Personally, I remember games like this quite fondly; they’re especially nice because there is NO action, just thinking through problems and remembering where you’ve been. Good stuff. And even if you don’t think you like photography, Lytro has come out with a camera which lets you shoot first and focus later – read the article, then watch the video. Enjoy!
Continue reading “Links”
Links
And another batch of links for your enjoyment and edification. If you’re at all interested in Artificial Intelligence (and what that term might mean), have a read of Norvig vs. Chomsky and the Fight for the Future of AI. There are, of course, lots of good ones in here, as I’ve been a bit remiss in publishing them despite having read the articles. Enjoy!
Continue reading “Links”
The Dance
*This post is a slightly modified version of an essay on T’s blog
On with the dance! let joy be unconfined;
No sleep till morn, when Youth and Pleasure meet
To chase the glowing hours with flying feet.
~George Gordon, Lord Byron, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage
This weekend we attended the epic wedding of friend Axel and were the on-the-spot photographers, as our gift to him. It was an epic wedding because a.) it’s Scotland, and people here party like it’s 1999 pretty much every night, b.) Axel is Romanian, and the Romanians party like it’s… 1989 (when Communism fell) as often as possible, and c.) it lasted for two days, and many, many, many sweaty, midge-biting (at the outdoor bbq) hours.
T is an introvert, socially backwards in some ways, and sometimes weirdly shy – so there were parts of the whole thing which made her break out in a sweat, including waltzing into the bride’s dressing room and photographing she and the groom’s sister getting ready (We teased Axel a long time about his imaginary girlfriend, because we’d never met her – so, “Um, yeah, hi. Don’t mind me, I’m just here to photograph you while some random chick puts lipstick on you. Just ignore me, thanks,” was T’s introduction.). D. was the quietest photographer on record, and also was too shy to be as bossy as he needed to be, but with a camera in front of his face, he is fairly impervious, and got some amazing, excellent shots (most of which we cannot share, because they are not ours. But! We will share some innocuous ones soon).
There were moments which were beautifully surreal, which included the sung Greek orthodox service with the cantor and the priest singing lovely duets, and the mystical looking gold-leafed icons, and the marching around the altar three times, and the crowns – the bride and groom are crowned in an orthodox service, which, along with the sugared wafers they got to eat was pretty great. (NB: The sugar represents the sweetness of marriage; some use sugared almonds for this symbolism. The crowns represent their new authority as a couple, since marriage gives them their own wee “kingdom.” The crowns also stand for the crowns of martyrs (!!) as the sacrifices of marriage are many. ::cough::) The cake was adorable – a stack of suitcases for all the bride and groom’s travels over their long distance, Minnesota-Scotland Skype dating; the Romanian gents, resplendent in their kilts, were too cute – they wore them well. But the moments we loved the best were the dancing.
Like many of you reading this blog (Hi, Adventists, Muslim ladies, Pentecostal folks, and Southern Baptists!), we were raised not dancing. The Hobbits, during their Bad Movie Nights, have never yet sat through (okay: suffered through) FOOTLOOSE*, that angsty 80’s dance film, but we’re told our lives run a parallel to the theme – churchy folk Just Didn’t Do That, because dance Led To Lust And Other Things. The only differences we see are a.) we’re not angsty 80’s boys, and b.) we figure we’re too physically awkward to worry about dancing anyway. (True or not, that’s our conclusion, and we’re sticking to it.)
The not dancing, though, takes something away from a person. We’re talking actual dances with steps, not what the “kids” these days call grinding or freak dancing or whatever – please. Real dance. To not dance — as families, as cross-generations, as human people — is to miss a pair of middle-aged women attempting the Virginia Reel and ending up in a breathless giggling tangle – or to miss being the groom quick-stepping his mother around the floor and singing with her some silly ABBA song, and to miss first-date couples and grandparents and shy Scots boys paired with shyer Romanian girls attempting cèilidh dancing for the first time, trying desperately to remember which way to step, hop, clap, and twirl. To not dance would be to miss all the suddenly unselfconsciously delighted Romanians of all ages — resplendent in their kilts, oh, yes — who ran shouting out onto the floor, arms raised, at the first strains of their traditional music. To not dance is perhaps to miss the turning of the world.
It was joy in action, celebration embodied. And we both felt crippled that we couldn’t stand up and join in. (Technically, we could have, but we weren’t really guests. And, T. begs you remember the descriptor “socially backwards and weirdly shy.” Thank you.)
English 102 in the undergrad years gave us William Carlos Williams’ The Dance, and T. recalls first looking up the painting. We still laugh at the words to the poem — Williams was so right about the round butts and heavy shanks — and this weekend we remembered again the circular phrases that remind us of the dances – running along, laughing, stepping and trying to keep up with the crazyfast Romanian circles, or the amusingly named “Dashing White Sergeant” or “Strip the Willow” or “The Pride of Erin Waltz” in the cèilidh – all stumbles and laughter, wild twirling and fumbles — learning grace with a slow, slow, quick, quick step. The laughing, the joy, the freely swinging hips, the stomping feet — all of those images swirled through our heads. So, these are our fantastic memories of someone else’s celebration – and a reminder to learn to uncripple ourselves and join the dance, metaphorically and literally.
The Dance
~ by William Carlos Williams~
In Breughel’s great picture, The Kermess,
the dancers go round, they go round and
around, the squeal and the blare and the
tweedle of bagpipes, a bugle and fiddles
tipping their bellies, (round as the thick-
sided glasses whose wash they impound)
their hips and their bellies off balance
to turn them. Kicking and rolling about
the Fair Grounds, swinging their butts, those
shanks must be sound to bear up under such
rollicking measures, prance as they dance
in Breughel’s great picture, The Kermess
* Okay, here’s the scoop on Footloose, which we know is deeply unfair to hate without ever having seen. It’s T’s fault, totally, and let us tell you why: A#1 Reason She Hasn’t Seen It:) the music. Okay. It’s fun, catchy, whatever. But. T. had this Eeeeevil Aerobics teacher, pre-Zumba days, when people still did plain old aerobics. She made T. do this… well, it can only be called a chicken dance thing — complete with rapid, full-extension can-can kicks, arm flailing, and side hops — to the title song to this film.
A lot of hate going on, after that. A lot of hate…
Links
Another batch of links for you. One of the stranger links this week is about how a Violinist Taps Artificial Intelligence to Interact With Her Unique Sound. I find myself reluctant to dig into that story, having once attended an “experimental” violin concert, from which we fled in agony as soon as possible (they didn’t give us an intermission, so all we avoided was the reception afterwards, but still). Enjoy the links!
Continue reading “Links”