Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 336.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "David L. Gants" <dgants@english.uga.edu> (58)
Subject: software patents and humanities computing
[2] From: Matt Kirschenbaum (24)
<mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: call for comments: revision of evaluation guidelines
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 21:11:09 +0000
From: "David L. Gants" <dgants@english.uga.edu>
Subject: software patents and humanities computing
>> From: Mark Wolff <WolffM0@hartwick.edu>
In one of the recent posts to Humanist (13.0324 free ESL software) there
was an advertisement for a new ESL program. I have no intention of
slamming the software or its producers, but I do have a question that
hopefully someone out there who knows more about this than I do can
answer. In the ad the author states that the commercial software in
question (despite the subject header, the software is not free) utilizes
"a patented new theory of grammar." Now this is something new to me as
a scholar in the humanities: patents on knowledge. Other disciplines,
especially in the physical sciences, apply for patents all the time for
things like new polymers, pharmaceuticals, computer chips, etc. Authors
of texts are compensated for their intellectual labors through
copyright, but copyright only protects authors from unauthorized
reproduction: I can read a text (or use a computer to read a text, as
in the case of software) and talk about it all I want, provided that I
have access to a copy of it. Copyright restricts my ability to make
(illegal) copies of a text. Patents on the other hand describe a
process by which a thing is made which can then be sold for a profit.
Scientists can discuss the process by which a new polymer is made, they
just can't make the substance in their labs for sale on the market.
The thing that bothers me here is that if knowledge in the humanities
(in this case, linguistics) can be patented, what effect will this have
on research in humanities computing? Suppose someone takes the ideas in
this patented linguistic theory and creates an original program (ie they
write the code from scratch) that allows one to parse a sentence for
language learning. Or suppose that the linguist/programmer in question
develops a new theory and creates a better language parser that depends
on the original patented theory. Would the programmer/linguist infringe
on the patent? The recent lawsuit between Amazon.com and one of its
e-commerce competitors would suggest that software innovation such as
this would make scholars and/or universities liable for damages. One of
the issues surrounding the Amazon patent, which you can read about at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html, is that Amazon has patented
an obvious idea for e-commerce: the use of client-side cookies to keep
track of what online shoppers want to buy before they "check-out." The
competitor did not copy the actual code running on Amazon's machines,
they just implemented the same idea which Amazon claims is "theirs."
Many of us who write code for humanities computing get ideas from what
we observe when we visit other web sites, academic and commercial. I
don't think this is copyright infringement because we don't copy the
code, just the ideas. Of course, we often do grab each other's code, but
we ask for permission and acknowledge each other's contribution. If I
were to write a program for a search engine that could handle texts
encoded in XML (a big "if," but what the hey), would I have to patent
the program in order to protect myself? What if I made the code open
source and distributed it freely to anyone who wanted to use it? Are
humanities computing scholars forced to work for software companies if
they want to develop research tools, or must they be consumers of
software products and let companies outside of academia decide how we
will use our computers?
mw
-- Mark B. Wolff Modern and Classical Languages Center for Learning and Teaching with Technology Hartwick College Oneonta, NY 13820 (607) 431-4615http://users.hartwick.edu/wolffm0/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 21:11:46 +0000 From: Matt Kirschenbaum <mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu> Subject: call for comments: revision of evaluation guidelines
On behalf of the MLA's Committee on Computers and Emerging Technologies (CCET), I would like to invite members of Humanist to review and comment on the proposed revision of the MLA's "Guidelines for Evaluation of Computer-Related Work." The draft version of the new document, entitled "Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages," can be found here:
http://www.mla.org/reports/ccet/ccet_call.htm
The importance of this document should be obvious to all. Please help the committee to ensure that it will serve the profession effectively.
See also a second document recently drafted by the CCET, entitled "Draft Guidelines for Institutional Support and Access to Information Technology for Faculty and Students in the Modern Languages," available for review and comment at that same address.
Please address comments on either document to Douglas Morgenstern, <dmorgen@MIT.EDU>.
For the CCET,
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Matthew G. Kirschenbaum Assistant Professor, Department of English Research in Computing for Humanities University of Kentucky
Technical Editor, The William Blake Archive
mgk@pop.uky.edu mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu http://www.rch.uky.edu/~mgk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Humanist Discussion Group Information at <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/> =========================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 09 2000 - 21:32:48 CUT