

An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers - timwiseman
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

======
slapshot
This is a great effort. But it is also ineffective.

I am a lawyer. I am also a software guy. But I'll be the first to say that
this is WAY too technical of an explanation for 99% of lawyers to follow, let
alone be persuaded.

It reads like notes from an Intro to Algorithms class, rather than as a
magazine article. It is not written in the form that lawyers are used to. It
appeals solely to pure logic (logos) and not at all to emotion (pathos).

Lists like "1. A synthetic language with a defined syntax; 2. An explicit list
of logical inference rules; 3. An explicit list of axioms" will just scare
lawyers away.

If you want to convince lawyers, you have to speak their (often strange)
language. This document does not do so.

~~~
cabalamat
> But it is also ineffective.

It's ineffective for another reason. Arguments such as "We can make one by
listing all possible programs in alphabetic order. Any program that one may
write is sitting in this list waiting to be written. In such a case, could a
program be considered an invention in the sense of patent law? Or is it a
discovery because the program is a preexisting mathematical abstraction that
is merely discovered?" are irrelevant, because a court would observe that it
takes effort and intention for a programmer to write a program, just as it
takes effort and intention for an author to write a novel. (And for the same
reason, any argument that novels can't be copyrighted because they are merely
"discovered" would fall flat on its face.)

The law takes into account the thoughts and intentions of people, which trump
logical mathematical arguments, however sound. I recommend the essay "What
Colour are your bits?" at
<http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php> which goes into this
point in more detail.

That doesn't mean it's pointless to try to get judges to understand computers
better. When they order things that're impossible -- such as telling an ISP to
filter all traffic that infringes copyright, including on encrypted data --
they are clearly in need of education.

~~~
timwiseman
Excellent point. To extend it slightly, you can similarly list all possible
patent applications alphabetically, this means that the patents at least are
discovered in precisely the same sense that programs are, if you tak that
point of view.

------
IsaacL
"All software is discovered and not invented."

Though this depends on your definition of "discover" and "invent", I would be
inclined to disagree. I personally find that the process of writing software
has more in common with engineering that mathematics.

Another argument: 'x was discovered', in some sense, implies that x could
likely have been discovered by another intelligent being in another time and
place. 'x was invented' implies that such was unlikely. Though I would agree
that algorithms are discovered (intelligent alien races are as likely to know
quicksort as they are relativity and calculus), I don't agree that complex
software systems are discovered.

~~~
moultano
The argument in that article can be applied to say that _all_ things are
discovered and not invented, which doesn't correspond at all to how we used
those words. I can enumerate all songs as easily as I can enumerate all
programs.

------
blahedo
I do wish it were a little shorter, or at least that the "why lawyers need
this" section came sooner---I think (fear) much of the target audience will
glaze over well before the end.

