I don't think I engaged in a straw man argument, and it certainly wasn't
intentional if I did.
Perhaps what is integral that I left out is that in
a legal context, when referring to "computer programs" (whatever those are,
legally speaking) structure, sequence, and organization are all synonyms, per
the judge who coined the phrase for legal usage 26 years ago. At the time,
structured programming was the dominant paradigm, and he borrowed then-current
words which would have made perfect sense to the computer scientists who
testified at the trial as expert witnesses. If I'm not mistaken (I haven't
checked) those expert witnesses would have been the source of the phrase (even
if they didn't use the words together in that way).
My point being that
all of the elements of SSO are part of the computing vocabulary (at least in my
experience). The underlying concept, that of identifiable but non-literal
elements is fundamental to software design and development. Thumbing through
the table of contents of an old copy of Code Complete on my shelf, I can see all
of the concepts represented, in practically the same words.
Thus I take
issue with the idea that any one of structure, sequence, or organization (since
they are interchangeable) is (or was) not part of the computing vocabulary with
approximately the same meaning as it is used in the legal vocabulary at the time
the phrase was adopted. That the legal vocabulary takes much longer to evolve
than the technical vocabulary is not a surprise, but the legal vocabulary is
based on the historical technical vocabulary, so it should not be conceptually
foreign to those in the field.
As for the complaint that the legal
process has prevented standard practice, technical knowledge, and commonsense in
this field from overruling the lawyers, that is its proper role. Industry
standard practices (in any industry) are not necessarily legal or wise (in fact
you can incur liability in negligence for following standard industry practice
if that practice is found itself to be negligent) and the interplay between the
law, industry, and science is all part of the political process of us figuring
out how to live together without killing each other.
If the technical
folks do their jobs educating the lawyers, judges, and politicians then this
perceived problem will go away, although probably not fast enough for those used
to the torrid pace of change in technical fields. I don't think that the
technical explanations given in the copyright phase of this trial were
particularly helpful. As a friend of mine with a Ph.D. in combinatorics once
told me "if I can't explain my thesis to a bright 13-year-old in less than 15
minutes, I have no business defending it." By this standard I'm not sure that
the experts had any business on the stand. In that regard I do agree with the
original poster: maybe the judge should have availed himself of a neutral
technical expert. On the other hand, this judge has a math degree and so is
likely quite capable of understanding the tech if it is explained well.
I
think your reference to cargo cult science is a bit unfair: the lawyers and
judges use the phrase as kind of shorthand, much like Feynman (whom I admire
greatly) would have used the words electron or photon, or the phrase
particle-wave when speaking both with other physicists and with
non-physicists.
Well, that turned into a much longer post than I had
intended. Have fun picking it apart. ;) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|