"Hey, Josh!"
No answer.
"Lotus position, right? Your mom said you've been sitting like this for most of the day. What's up?"
Still no answer.
"Are you attempting enlightenment?"
Still no response.
"You can't just start an attempt at enlightenment without preparation, you know. You have to start the fast right so you don't end up having to break meditation to go to the toilet."
"Mmmmmmmm."
"That did not sound like a a mantra."
"It wasn't.Who dares do any kind of yoga without a lawyer and a coach these days?"
"Huh?"
"In the news today, three more lawsuits over people practicing patented yoga positions."
And now Max doesn't know what to say.
"So, what do say to that?"
"Is that why you aren't doing a proper lotus?"
Josh wrote a song, but fears to publish it because of copyrights. Also fears to do correct yoga because of patents.
Don't remember where it went.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
implementation constraints and software patents
I posted this on Groklaw, in response to some who were bringing out the Turing argument without thinking about it. I'll post it here, too, with some editing and comments:
--------------------------
PHBs use the Turing Machine argument to justify using cheap CPUs (or simply the CPU "everyone else" is using) in applications those CPUs are not appropriate for.
There is a logical equivalence between CPUs, but the equivalence breaks down somewhat in the real world, where time and memory are ultimately limited.
And then the PHBs can't figure out why the project gets mired in engineering time working out tricks to somehow squeeze enough juice out of said CPU to get at least the most important features of the application to work.
And then they want to recoup the excessive costs of development (that could have been avoided, if they had been willing to use a better CPU) by getting patents on the inventions from the work.
And then, once they have the patents, it's all too easy to think that the patents must apply to any machine that does the same thing, not just to the tricks they used to get their functions running on the hardware they were stupid enough to choose.
This is precisely the reason patents are supposed to be specific. They are supposed to allow control over what has been invented, but not allow the limited control to monopolize the entire market.
Historically, there were a few cases where the patented invention was new and opriginal enough that it seemed to be reasonable to allow the patent (for the limited lifetime of the patent) to virtually monopolize the market for a particular kind of product. Those were supposed to be exceptions. Rare exceptions.
But everyone thinks (without thinking of the consequences) that it's unfair that their patent doesn't get the same treatment. Well, at least in physically embodied patents, the issues with freedom are obvious enough to keep the "It's unfair!" arguments at bay. Or, the issues were obvious enough for a long time. Apparently, the issues are no longer so obvious.
So, the PHBs have succumbed to the siren call of the illusion of monopoly control, and they sue the living daylights out of the market, and the profits from the suits is what enables them to put sell the product at the originally specified price that assumed that the cheap CPU would do the job without the extra development.
And their cheaper product (cheap by unfair means, mind you) now takes over that piece of the market on price instead of actual performance or other merit. (Two monopolies for the price of one, you could say.)
(You wonder what wonderful things could have happened, were the intel CPU not strangling the desktop, market? and now parts of the server and high-performance markets? Someday, maybe I'll have the time and resources to show you. It's hard to explain in the present market where people can't see the future for the marketing schemes of the rich and famous. If not, well, this world has a history of regularly rejecting the better way, so it won't be the first time.)
I'll personally accept the idea of software patents when the patent applications include the source code and hardware specified and the claims are limited to the specified source code and specified hardware and the specified combination thereof.
But patents on source code itself get really tangled up in the fact that source code is automatically transformed. It's hard to set boundaries on the transformations that are covered without being either overly restrictive or overly broad.
And that's why copyright makes more sense for source code. The way it should work is that there should be a copyright on the source code and a patent on the hardware and on the hardware combined with the source code. That is, the patent claims should only be for the hardware and the hardware+source code, and the claims on the source code itself should be copyright claims only.
Thus, dealing in the hardware is controlled by the patent on the hardware. Dealing in the software is controlled by the copyright on the software. Dealing in the combination is controlled by the patent.
Then software functions can be re-implemented (using clean-room techniques where necessary) for other hardware without infringing the patent, and this is as it should be.
I suppose the law may be missing a way to tie patent claims to copyright claims, if so, that is where the law should be changed, but we must be careful to avoid allowing the tying to defeat the intended limits on both patents and copyright.
Otherwise, there is no way to avoid being over-broad.
--------------------------
PHBs use the Turing Machine argument to justify using cheap CPUs (or simply the CPU "everyone else" is using) in applications those CPUs are not appropriate for.
There is a logical equivalence between CPUs, but the equivalence breaks down somewhat in the real world, where time and memory are ultimately limited.
And then the PHBs can't figure out why the project gets mired in engineering time working out tricks to somehow squeeze enough juice out of said CPU to get at least the most important features of the application to work.
And then they want to recoup the excessive costs of development (that could have been avoided, if they had been willing to use a better CPU) by getting patents on the inventions from the work.
And then, once they have the patents, it's all too easy to think that the patents must apply to any machine that does the same thing, not just to the tricks they used to get their functions running on the hardware they were stupid enough to choose.
This is precisely the reason patents are supposed to be specific. They are supposed to allow control over what has been invented, but not allow the limited control to monopolize the entire market.
Historically, there were a few cases where the patented invention was new and opriginal enough that it seemed to be reasonable to allow the patent (for the limited lifetime of the patent) to virtually monopolize the market for a particular kind of product. Those were supposed to be exceptions. Rare exceptions.
But everyone thinks (without thinking of the consequences) that it's unfair that their patent doesn't get the same treatment. Well, at least in physically embodied patents, the issues with freedom are obvious enough to keep the "It's unfair!" arguments at bay. Or, the issues were obvious enough for a long time. Apparently, the issues are no longer so obvious.
So, the PHBs have succumbed to the siren call of the illusion of monopoly control, and they sue the living daylights out of the market, and the profits from the suits is what enables them to put sell the product at the originally specified price that assumed that the cheap CPU would do the job without the extra development.
And their cheaper product (cheap by unfair means, mind you) now takes over that piece of the market on price instead of actual performance or other merit. (Two monopolies for the price of one, you could say.)
(You wonder what wonderful things could have happened, were the intel CPU not strangling the desktop, market? and now parts of the server and high-performance markets? Someday, maybe I'll have the time and resources to show you. It's hard to explain in the present market where people can't see the future for the marketing schemes of the rich and famous. If not, well, this world has a history of regularly rejecting the better way, so it won't be the first time.)
I'll personally accept the idea of software patents when the patent applications include the source code and hardware specified and the claims are limited to the specified source code and specified hardware and the specified combination thereof.
But patents on source code itself get really tangled up in the fact that source code is automatically transformed. It's hard to set boundaries on the transformations that are covered without being either overly restrictive or overly broad.
And that's why copyright makes more sense for source code. The way it should work is that there should be a copyright on the source code and a patent on the hardware and on the hardware combined with the source code. That is, the patent claims should only be for the hardware and the hardware+source code, and the claims on the source code itself should be copyright claims only.
Thus, dealing in the hardware is controlled by the patent on the hardware. Dealing in the software is controlled by the copyright on the software. Dealing in the combination is controlled by the patent.
Then software functions can be re-implemented (using clean-room techniques where necessary) for other hardware without infringing the patent, and this is as it should be.
I suppose the law may be missing a way to tie patent claims to copyright claims, if so, that is where the law should be changed, but we must be careful to avoid allowing the tying to defeat the intended limits on both patents and copyright.
Otherwise, there is no way to avoid being over-broad.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
My responses to the SCO arguments.
Kevin McBride posted a comment on a Lantham Act case, and Andreas Kuckartz pointed out the possible Lantham Act implications concerning SCO.
Kevin ran out of time to respond to all the people like me who wanted to add their two cents, so I'm adding my two cents here. I wish I had time to do more than express my own opinions and make naked assertions, or even to convert it from the open letter format it became:
------------------------------
Hi, Kevin,
I appreciate your willingness to open up a conversation about the wisdom of SCO vs. IBM and the related law suits.
I thought I'd respond to your "last word", I'm sure I'm not the only one.
One problem we have is that too many of the experts are experts in computers or in the law, but not both, and the odd impression, often not admitted, that there is something very similar between the two.
It's important to understand that there is a similarity, but also that the similarity will trip up an expert in the one field when trying to operate in the domain of the other. However, computer science does allow us, as a race and as an amalgamate culture, the opportunity to understand the intersection between our mathematics and our laws. Well, those are side points that aren't really that far aside, but back to my response to your last word.
IP:
I know I'm picking a fight with your specialty when I ask this, but is "Intellectual Property" really the best word we have for what were originally temporary grants of rights to exercise a stewardship in the commons, that is a right to control a new piece of the marketplace for a time?
Commoditization:
Why should the software industry be any more protected against commoditization than any other?
To the extent that participants in any industry should be protected from commoditization, isn't copyright and trademark about the best we can get without shooting ourselves in the foot? (I reference the fashion industry and admit that copyright doesn't provide nearly the protection that players in the fashion industry currently seem to think they want.)
I know I'm treading awfully close to your toes, but I don't think the present world really is a world without IP protection. As an individual software developer, my point of view (through painful experience with Microsoft, in particular) is that I think I have a much better chance of making any money at all from my software using the GPL or MIT license than I would have trying to work withing the IP framework the big IP players claim.
The GPL, in particular, gives me a lot more control over my projects under that license than any agreement I could make with a corporate steward. (Something of an oxymoron, that "corporate steward" thing.)
Groklaw:
Poisoning the well isn't nice, but there has been a bit of that going around on all sides, so, well, let's leave the issue of poisoning the well aside.
The critical analysis of Groklaw's work is an ongoing process. I suppose there is a bit of rah-rah at Groklaw, but there is also plenty of critical analysis. When PJ is wrong, we tell her so.
PJ is not unbiased, and her point of view is not unflawed. But that's okay. I think I hear you laughing at that and asking why it could be okay, but are you unbiased? Is your point of view unflawed?
The problem here is that we hear plenty of people pounding the drums you pound. We don't hear anywhere close to enough on any other side, and the industry is way out of balance.
Professor Lessig has some odd ideas. Some just seem odd in the present context, kind of like the idea that governments should recognize their dependency on (relatively free) individuals once seemed odd. Others of his ideas are truly way out there.
But how does that tie to the fact that, in the current world dominated by IP holders, the only places I can make enough money to feed my family, pay the rent, and send my kids to school just happen to be places using free and open source software?
Different strokes for different folks, but if Microsoft's dominance of the industry had not been stanched, I'd be faced with real commodity wages building add-ons to add-ons to add-ons to add-ons to Microsoft's latest fads. That's where the world was heading back in the early 1990s, and that's where a world dominated by Intellectual Property is heading.
By the way, don't forget that the Macintosh OS was essentially saved by the FreeBSD community.
RMS:
Stallman is a crackpot. The world needs more crackpots, including more like him. When industry moguls recognize it helps their promotional campaigns, they admit it, but it is true. The pool of crackpots is the pool of talent that moves the industries forward.
But, yes, Stallman understands copyright, and many of us don't. That's something we are working on, getting more people to understand the laws of copyright.
I might add, for what it's worth, many in the "IP" camp fail to understand copyright.
As for information wanting to be free, I think even Stallman admits that the meme might have been a tactical error.
We are, after all, bundles of information, we want to be free, and we aren't always willing to do what it takes to maintain our freedom. Of course, we are fundamentally free, until when we sell our freedoms away.
But that's all a red herring. The real issue is not whether information wants to be, or should be free. The real issue is how do we allot people their stewardships over their intangible properties which they create? How do we do it fairly, how do we balance the inventor's stewardship against the stewardships of others in society?
How do we integrate the stewardships of the various people who want to join in the work developing a particular intangible property when we don't want to make money the gate to the market segment? The GPL works well for that for many people. The ISC license also works well for some people, although it takes more activity and effort.
Money itself is not evil, as long as there remain things that you can't buy with it.
IBM:
IBM has IBM's future in mind in the games they play. Most of us trust IBM only as far as we can throw them, but as long as they play by the rules, we'll work with them.
Linux did not save their faltering business. The kernel and the OSses and the community helped out somewhat, but the attitude helped even more. The fact is that they had gotten stuck in the mode of licensing as their business model, and they shifted to a mode of providing services, and the shift pulled the company out of the dive.
Licensing as an implicit services model has its uses, but it also has its limits, and it will kill any business that forgets the implicit services part.
The idea that IBM violated IP rights of SCO is, well, sorry to say so out loud, but it is just plain wrong. It's re-writing history.
Old SCO bought a business supporting the dying UNIX. It was a valid, athough not extremely lucrative, business model. Novell wanted to go other places, the old SCO figured there would be lots of business opportunities helping UNIX customers switch to Linux.
I remember the ads and the publicity campaign, I am not depending on Groklaw's cache of found documents.
There was more work involved than was expected, and there was more necessity for patience than was expected. Linux was, in many cases, not yet quite ready, and that meant that many of the customers needed a lot more support Unix, more than was expected, before they would be ready for paying for the support in moving to Linux.
And the Unix expertise was a bit harder to come by than the Linux expertise.
And then, when somebody dug around to make sure new SCO had the rights to do the Unix support, it was discovered that an intern had realized that old SCO didn't seem to have the IP rights without some sort of explicit agreement about the "IP". Falsely, because the agreement between AT&T and UCB made the question moot. And so we have a half-baked left over from that in the APA, which, at any rate, was only meant to give SCO the evidence for their customers that they had sufficient rights to maintain UNIX and to move the customers' applications to Linux when the time was right.
And then somebody (sorry to say it this way) got suckered into the old licensing-as-a-business trap.
Darl should have known that Novell would not have voluntarily just walked away from a gold mine. It would be huge hubris to for him to believe himself to be able to see a real gold mine where Novell had not. It would be even stranger for him to have believed that Novell was trying to leave the gold mine alone just to nurture their own piece of the nascent Linux market and convince himself that Novell would have then been willing to let SCO kill the market in Novell's place.
It's hard to see any sort of reasonability in Darl's behavior.
I'm not going to try to read his mind, because it doesn't make sense the way he tells it, whether you assume the IP could really be enforced or whether you understand the implications of the agreement between AT&T and Berkeley.
Dynix or otherwise, there were no protectable methods and concepts left after AT&T and Berkeley settled. This is common knowledge among the Free/Net/OpenBSD community. It's hard to argue with the question of why neither Berkeley nor AT&T bothered shutting down the BSD projects.
Some/most of the early technical users of Unix (engineers) would say that the methods and concepts in Unix were so basic and so understood by practicioners of the art of the time that they were unpatentable anyway, completely aside from the question of whether or not software in general should be patentable.
Copyright cannot be substituted to control an invention that is unpatentable.
There is nothing there, nothing except Darl's insistence that he should have been allowed to say, "No, I didn't really mean it." about something that was, if you have to take the IP point of view, was given away before SCO ever came into the picture.
The Monterey arguments, well, Groklaw raises a lot of questions about the trail any new IP from that might have taken into Linux. To convince any of us, you're going to have to demonstrate that there was meaningful new IP that didn't take any of those trails in.
The standards bodies argument, you're going to have to unpack that one, too.
IP discipline? I don't know. If I were to take any of this seriously, I don't think "discipline" would be the right word. "Fear", maybe.
Now, we are not telling anyone they have to give their software away for free.
It would be nice if the whole world suddenly came to their senses about Microsoft. It would also be nice if the whole world suddenly came to their senses about religion. And freedom. It ain't gonna happen. There will always be plenty of people willing to buy proprietary, non-free software, as long as there is any market for software.
But if it did suddenly happen, I think the problems you are seeing would solve themselves.
You see, there will also be plenty of people willing to buy service agreements for free/open source software. People who pay me for the software I've put out there are not buying the software. They are buying my time, and they pay me the same, whether I slap a restrictive EUA on it or give it to them under the GPL.
The problem of competition is not a problem either because my clients are not buying the software. They are buying my time. And if it comes down to forcing them to buy my time, why should I?
You can have your IP, as long as you let me have my GPL/ISC. Different strokes for different folks.
Kevin ran out of time to respond to all the people like me who wanted to add their two cents, so I'm adding my two cents here. I wish I had time to do more than express my own opinions and make naked assertions, or even to convert it from the open letter format it became:
------------------------------
Hi, Kevin,
I appreciate your willingness to open up a conversation about the wisdom of SCO vs. IBM and the related law suits.
I thought I'd respond to your "last word", I'm sure I'm not the only one.
One problem we have is that too many of the experts are experts in computers or in the law, but not both, and the odd impression, often not admitted, that there is something very similar between the two.
It's important to understand that there is a similarity, but also that the similarity will trip up an expert in the one field when trying to operate in the domain of the other. However, computer science does allow us, as a race and as an amalgamate culture, the opportunity to understand the intersection between our mathematics and our laws. Well, those are side points that aren't really that far aside, but back to my response to your last word.
IP:
I know I'm picking a fight with your specialty when I ask this, but is "Intellectual Property" really the best word we have for what were originally temporary grants of rights to exercise a stewardship in the commons, that is a right to control a new piece of the marketplace for a time?
Commoditization:
Why should the software industry be any more protected against commoditization than any other?
To the extent that participants in any industry should be protected from commoditization, isn't copyright and trademark about the best we can get without shooting ourselves in the foot? (I reference the fashion industry and admit that copyright doesn't provide nearly the protection that players in the fashion industry currently seem to think they want.)
I know I'm treading awfully close to your toes, but I don't think the present world really is a world without IP protection. As an individual software developer, my point of view (through painful experience with Microsoft, in particular) is that I think I have a much better chance of making any money at all from my software using the GPL or MIT license than I would have trying to work withing the IP framework the big IP players claim.
The GPL, in particular, gives me a lot more control over my projects under that license than any agreement I could make with a corporate steward. (Something of an oxymoron, that "corporate steward" thing.)
Groklaw:
Poisoning the well isn't nice, but there has been a bit of that going around on all sides, so, well, let's leave the issue of poisoning the well aside.
The critical analysis of Groklaw's work is an ongoing process. I suppose there is a bit of rah-rah at Groklaw, but there is also plenty of critical analysis. When PJ is wrong, we tell her so.
PJ is not unbiased, and her point of view is not unflawed. But that's okay. I think I hear you laughing at that and asking why it could be okay, but are you unbiased? Is your point of view unflawed?
The problem here is that we hear plenty of people pounding the drums you pound. We don't hear anywhere close to enough on any other side, and the industry is way out of balance.
Professor Lessig has some odd ideas. Some just seem odd in the present context, kind of like the idea that governments should recognize their dependency on (relatively free) individuals once seemed odd. Others of his ideas are truly way out there.
But how does that tie to the fact that, in the current world dominated by IP holders, the only places I can make enough money to feed my family, pay the rent, and send my kids to school just happen to be places using free and open source software?
Different strokes for different folks, but if Microsoft's dominance of the industry had not been stanched, I'd be faced with real commodity wages building add-ons to add-ons to add-ons to add-ons to Microsoft's latest fads. That's where the world was heading back in the early 1990s, and that's where a world dominated by Intellectual Property is heading.
By the way, don't forget that the Macintosh OS was essentially saved by the FreeBSD community.
RMS:
Stallman is a crackpot. The world needs more crackpots, including more like him. When industry moguls recognize it helps their promotional campaigns, they admit it, but it is true. The pool of crackpots is the pool of talent that moves the industries forward.
But, yes, Stallman understands copyright, and many of us don't. That's something we are working on, getting more people to understand the laws of copyright.
I might add, for what it's worth, many in the "IP" camp fail to understand copyright.
As for information wanting to be free, I think even Stallman admits that the meme might have been a tactical error.
We are, after all, bundles of information, we want to be free, and we aren't always willing to do what it takes to maintain our freedom. Of course, we are fundamentally free, until when we sell our freedoms away.
But that's all a red herring. The real issue is not whether information wants to be, or should be free. The real issue is how do we allot people their stewardships over their intangible properties which they create? How do we do it fairly, how do we balance the inventor's stewardship against the stewardships of others in society?
How do we integrate the stewardships of the various people who want to join in the work developing a particular intangible property when we don't want to make money the gate to the market segment? The GPL works well for that for many people. The ISC license also works well for some people, although it takes more activity and effort.
Money itself is not evil, as long as there remain things that you can't buy with it.
IBM:
IBM has IBM's future in mind in the games they play. Most of us trust IBM only as far as we can throw them, but as long as they play by the rules, we'll work with them.
Linux did not save their faltering business. The kernel and the OSses and the community helped out somewhat, but the attitude helped even more. The fact is that they had gotten stuck in the mode of licensing as their business model, and they shifted to a mode of providing services, and the shift pulled the company out of the dive.
Licensing as an implicit services model has its uses, but it also has its limits, and it will kill any business that forgets the implicit services part.
The idea that IBM violated IP rights of SCO is, well, sorry to say so out loud, but it is just plain wrong. It's re-writing history.
Old SCO bought a business supporting the dying UNIX. It was a valid, athough not extremely lucrative, business model. Novell wanted to go other places, the old SCO figured there would be lots of business opportunities helping UNIX customers switch to Linux.
I remember the ads and the publicity campaign, I am not depending on Groklaw's cache of found documents.
There was more work involved than was expected, and there was more necessity for patience than was expected. Linux was, in many cases, not yet quite ready, and that meant that many of the customers needed a lot more support Unix, more than was expected, before they would be ready for paying for the support in moving to Linux.
And the Unix expertise was a bit harder to come by than the Linux expertise.
And then, when somebody dug around to make sure new SCO had the rights to do the Unix support, it was discovered that an intern had realized that old SCO didn't seem to have the IP rights without some sort of explicit agreement about the "IP". Falsely, because the agreement between AT&T and UCB made the question moot. And so we have a half-baked left over from that in the APA, which, at any rate, was only meant to give SCO the evidence for their customers that they had sufficient rights to maintain UNIX and to move the customers' applications to Linux when the time was right.
And then somebody (sorry to say it this way) got suckered into the old licensing-as-a-business trap.
Darl should have known that Novell would not have voluntarily just walked away from a gold mine. It would be huge hubris to for him to believe himself to be able to see a real gold mine where Novell had not. It would be even stranger for him to have believed that Novell was trying to leave the gold mine alone just to nurture their own piece of the nascent Linux market and convince himself that Novell would have then been willing to let SCO kill the market in Novell's place.
It's hard to see any sort of reasonability in Darl's behavior.
I'm not going to try to read his mind, because it doesn't make sense the way he tells it, whether you assume the IP could really be enforced or whether you understand the implications of the agreement between AT&T and Berkeley.
Dynix or otherwise, there were no protectable methods and concepts left after AT&T and Berkeley settled. This is common knowledge among the Free/Net/OpenBSD community. It's hard to argue with the question of why neither Berkeley nor AT&T bothered shutting down the BSD projects.
Some/most of the early technical users of Unix (engineers) would say that the methods and concepts in Unix were so basic and so understood by practicioners of the art of the time that they were unpatentable anyway, completely aside from the question of whether or not software in general should be patentable.
Copyright cannot be substituted to control an invention that is unpatentable.
There is nothing there, nothing except Darl's insistence that he should have been allowed to say, "No, I didn't really mean it." about something that was, if you have to take the IP point of view, was given away before SCO ever came into the picture.
The Monterey arguments, well, Groklaw raises a lot of questions about the trail any new IP from that might have taken into Linux. To convince any of us, you're going to have to demonstrate that there was meaningful new IP that didn't take any of those trails in.
The standards bodies argument, you're going to have to unpack that one, too.
IP discipline? I don't know. If I were to take any of this seriously, I don't think "discipline" would be the right word. "Fear", maybe.
Now, we are not telling anyone they have to give their software away for free.
It would be nice if the whole world suddenly came to their senses about Microsoft. It would also be nice if the whole world suddenly came to their senses about religion. And freedom. It ain't gonna happen. There will always be plenty of people willing to buy proprietary, non-free software, as long as there is any market for software.
But if it did suddenly happen, I think the problems you are seeing would solve themselves.
You see, there will also be plenty of people willing to buy service agreements for free/open source software. People who pay me for the software I've put out there are not buying the software. They are buying my time, and they pay me the same, whether I slap a restrictive EUA on it or give it to them under the GPL.
The problem of competition is not a problem either because my clients are not buying the software. They are buying my time. And if it comes down to forcing them to buy my time, why should I?
You can have your IP, as long as you let me have my GPL/ISC. Different strokes for different folks.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Still in Panic Mode まだパニックモードです。
Seriously, what else would get me looking at certifying?
マジで、パニックってなければ、何で資格を取るなんて考えるでしょう？
Well, I was reading material from the Hello Work Hanshin Satellite for the Japanese. They point out that experience without certification is often worth more than certification without experience, except in certain fields. But certification is usually better than nothing, and experience plus certification probably gets rated better than experience alone.
さて、ハローワークサテライト阪神からいただいた資料を読んでいたところ、その資料によると特別な分野以外は、紙資格よりは、経験の方が高く評価されるのです。ただし大概は何もない状態よりは資格ありの状態の方がましでしょう。それに、経験の上に資格ありがベスト、かな、ということを指摘しています。
Okay, okay, I'll take another look at certification. I'll ignore what I know from the inside of the Eigo Kentei. (English Language Certification Test in Japan -- Really, it has improved significantly since they started it.) And I'll wink at the recent (and unsurprising) flap about the Kanji Kentei. (Kanji Certification Test -- The guy in charge was skimming profits or something.)
まあまあ、資格というものを見直すことにする。英語検定について以前の経験によって知ったことを無視しておく。（いや、実は英検は初めのころから結構よくなっています。）また、先ほど、漢字検定に関わる騒動に目を閉じておこう。（上の人が利益を不正にもらっていたとかそんなことやったな。）
(Something about certifications invites abuse of power, okay?)
（資格というものには権力の悪用を招くものがあります、ね。）
Oh, I'll admit these kinds of tests can be useful for two things:
（外人向きの）日本語能力試験を以前から見ていて、取ることを考えています。頑張れば、一級でも、二級でも達成できるほどのチャレンジになると思います。ただし、私の勉強の癖は、必要なものを必要しているときに勉強する、非規範的勉強法なのですので、どちらにしてもまだまだ勉強が必要です。
I've also been looking at the Nihongo Kentei. (Yeah, I have a little problem with hubris.) I could get a level 3 on that with about the same amount of study (but different focus) as I would need for level 1 of the JLPT. Might even be worth trying for the preparatory level 2.
日本語検定も考えています。（はい。うちはちょっと自信過剰です。）日本語能力試験に一級を取るほどの努力で、焦点をちょっと変えれば日本語検定の三級を取ることが可能と思います。もしかして準二級を試みてもよいかも知りません。
Actually, any level of the test, from 9 to 3, would be a bit of a stretch. It would give me an excuse to study things I want to study, but,then again, I don't have time to go back to kindergarten.
本当のこと言えば、九級から三級まで、どれの級でも、辛抱しないと取れないかも。それに、ずっと勉強したいと思ってきたものを勉強する理由にはなるが、考え直せば、幼稚園に戻ってやり直す余裕がありません。
That was actually part of the reason I spent four years as an Assistant Language Teacher in the primary grades, but these days they really don't give the ALT/AETs much spare time for real study. Besides, I like the kids and the teachers and I really want to help out where I can.
本に、先ほどのキャリア寄り道、公立小・中学校で四年間を英語補佐として勤めたわけの一一部でしたが、現在の英語補佐の仕事の時間内には勉強できるほどの暇を割り当てていただいていません。また、本当は子供たちも先生方もできるだけ助けてあげたかったのです。
Great, as long as I'm spinning my wheels, why not push one or both of those ahead? When are the tests? The next Nihongo Kentei is scheduled for mid-November, I can register starting in August. The next JLPT is scheduled for December, registration begins in late August, materials available in mid-August. (Yeah, I know those links are going to go stale.)
よし。車輪を空転さしてる間、片方でも両方でも検定を推し進めるではありませんか。試験はいつに行うのだった。次回の日本語検定は十一月の中旬の予定です。八月から申し込みできます。日本語能力試験は十二月なので、申し込みは八月下旬からでき、教材は八月中旬から書店に着く予定です。（ハイハイ、予定のリンクは直に賞味期限切れになるって分かるよ。）
Uhm, yeah, I can pursue that, but I sure hope I have a job by then. If not, I'm going to be working short-term as a guardsman or something (again) and my family are going to have to move in with my wife's folks, since we won't be able to pay rent. (I don't think her dad will be happy.) Oh, and we'll have to take the kids out of juku. No more swimming for them, either.
さよう。試験の準備を追い進めてもいいですが、そこまでになっていると就職していなければ困ります。また警備などのバイトしなきゃいけないのですか。それどころ、家賃払えなくなったらうちの嫁さんの親の家に住み込みに行くのですか。（お父さん嬉しく思っていただけると思わないんですね。）さらに子供らの塾やスイミングスクールをやめさせなきゃいけないことも。
All those low-paying jobs are hard work. I don't mind the grunt work, but I would sure like to be paid enough to feed my kids and put them through school.
給料の低いバイトはみんなしんどい仕事なんだ。筋肉労働は構いませんけど、子供らに食べさして学費を払うほどの給与がほしいと思う。
So I went over to look at the Data Processing Specialist certifications. Erm, Information Technology Specialist. Whatever. Maybe those exams come earlier.
次第に情報処理技術者試験の様子を見に行った。もしかしてそちらの試験がもっと早いうちに取れる。
I have a bachelor of science degree in computer science. BSCS. It's not a brand new diploma by any means, but it should be enough to get me certified, at a basic level at least, right?
僕の持っている理学士のくらいは最新のものではないが、コンピュータサイエンスですし、少なくとも基本のレベルですぐに資格取れるはずでしょう。ね。
So I downloaded the most basic test from last year. They call it the "IT Passport Test"
さて、一番基本の去年の試験をダウンロードしました。いわゆる「ITパスポート試験」。
Let's see. What's the first question? The meaning of "data"? Something about places to find data? Something about distinguishing data that can be processed by a computer and data that can't?
見てみよう。最初の問題はどうでしょう。「データ」の意味？情報が見出せるところについての何か？機械で処理できる情報と処理できない処理を見極める方法の何らかの質問？
Erm, Something about process elements and algorithm construction? About program objects? About the concept of modules?
エエエッと、処理要素と手順成立の関連？手順物品プログラムオブジェクトについて？機部モジュールの概念のこと？
errrrrm, uhm, (Will they send me a take-down notice if I put even one question in here? I'll re-word it.)
アノーーッ、エエエエエエッと、（一問だけの問題をここに引用したら、そちらから掲載撤退知らせを出されるかな？言葉を変えておく。）
What strategy allows a company to bring in advanced technology and skilled technologists from another company?
どちらが戦略なので、その戦略によって他社の先進技術を自分の会社に持ち込むことができますか。
No way to re-word the answers and keep the meaning:
回答の言葉を変えることは意味がなくなる：
This is not basic IT, this is business. IT business maybe, but business. Comparative interpretation of profits. Management techniques. Buzzwords galore. Gag. Patents in the test, too!!! Strategy, strategy, strategy!!!!!!
これは情報技術の基本ではありません。これは【業務よりも】営業です。情報技術関連の営業かも知りませんが、営業です。利益の比較的解釈。管理術。流行用語たっぷり。ゲッ。試験に特許も出るか？戦略、戦術、兵法、センリャク！！！
Deep breath. Let's go back and see if this really was intended as the entry-level exam.
深呼吸。ちょっと道に迷ったのではないでしょう？戻って、間違いなくこれが入門のレベルの試験かどうか確認しよう。
Yeah, that was level 1, and level 4 is all the individual topics. So this is not the inverted rank like the language tests I'm needing to take, where 1 is highest and 5 or 9 is lowest.
ウムッ。レベル１です。レベル４はそれぞれの科目試験。したがって、これが取らなきゃいけない言語の試験のように、一級が最上級なのに５及び９が最低級になっている訳ではないのです。
They've just made a business overview of the current state of the market the entry level test.
ただ単純に情報技術市場の現状の営業概要を情報技術の入門にしてしまってくれただけです。
Well, I guess I can handle that. I've seen this kind of craziness before.
まあ、いいか？こんな意味不明なのを過去に見たことはあるわ。
I would need to buy a recent book for the test to decode the buzzwords and the context of expectations, but it should be an easy read. Might be useful just to get me through interviews a little better. Don't really have the money, but maybe I can skip lunch for a week.
用語とその想定上の文脈を解読するに最新の資料を買えば。きっと難しい読書ではないと思う。それに、面接をもっとうまく通るのに便利かも。お金はきついなんですが、一週間ぐらい昼ご飯省けるかも分からない。
Old books like I'd find at the library are not going to be useful with these kinds of questions, of course.
無論、図書館にある一つ古い本はこんな問題に対処にならないでしょう。
Let's see, registration begins next week, the new materials should be available, the tests are mid-October. I don't see anything that tells me I have to start with the lower-level tests, I'll have to check the registration forms to be sure.
申し込みは来週からですね。新資料はもう、手に入ると思うし、試験が十月中旬です。低級の試験から取らなくてはならないような案内がないようです。申し込み用紙を見たらわかるはずです。
But it's still not really timely.
でも、十月にしても、僕には適時ではありません。
マジで、パニックってなければ、何で資格を取るなんて考えるでしょう？
Well, I was reading material from the Hello Work Hanshin Satellite for the Japanese. They point out that experience without certification is often worth more than certification without experience, except in certain fields. But certification is usually better than nothing, and experience plus certification probably gets rated better than experience alone.
さて、ハローワークサテライト阪神からいただいた資料を読んでいたところ、その資料によると特別な分野以外は、紙資格よりは、経験の方が高く評価されるのです。ただし大概は何もない状態よりは資格ありの状態の方がましでしょう。それに、経験の上に資格ありがベスト、かな、ということを指摘しています。
Okay, okay, I'll take another look at certification. I'll ignore what I know from the inside of the Eigo Kentei. (English Language Certification Test in Japan -- Really, it has improved significantly since they started it.) And I'll wink at the recent (and unsurprising) flap about the Kanji Kentei. (Kanji Certification Test -- The guy in charge was skimming profits or something.)
まあまあ、資格というものを見直すことにする。英語検定について以前の経験によって知ったことを無視しておく。（いや、実は英検は初めのころから結構よくなっています。）また、先ほど、漢字検定に関わる騒動に目を閉じておこう。（上の人が利益を不正にもらっていたとかそんなことやったな。）
(Something about certifications invites abuse of power, okay?)
（資格というものには権力の悪用を招くものがあります、ね。）
Oh, I'll admit these kinds of tests can be useful for two things:
- Communicating to the uninitiate one's interest in and theoretical knowledge of a subject -- of theoretical use even in practice;
- and providing incentive to study a subject -- of real use, but easily taken way too far.
- 資格を取っている本人のその科目に対しての関心や理論上の知識を、分野に精通していない人に伝えること。（応用時にも理論的に役に立つのですね。）
- また、その課題を勉強する動機付け。（実際に役立つものですが、容易に行きすぎるでしょう。）
（外人向きの）日本語能力試験を以前から見ていて、取ることを考えています。頑張れば、一級でも、二級でも達成できるほどのチャレンジになると思います。ただし、私の勉強の癖は、必要なものを必要しているときに勉強する、非規範的勉強法なのですので、どちらにしてもまだまだ勉強が必要です。
I've also been looking at the Nihongo Kentei. (Yeah, I have a little problem with hubris.) I could get a level 3 on that with about the same amount of study (but different focus) as I would need for level 1 of the JLPT. Might even be worth trying for the preparatory level 2.
日本語検定も考えています。（はい。うちはちょっと自信過剰です。）日本語能力試験に一級を取るほどの努力で、焦点をちょっと変えれば日本語検定の三級を取ることが可能と思います。もしかして準二級を試みてもよいかも知りません。
Actually, any level of the test, from 9 to 3, would be a bit of a stretch. It would give me an excuse to study things I want to study, but,then again, I don't have time to go back to kindergarten.
本当のこと言えば、九級から三級まで、どれの級でも、辛抱しないと取れないかも。それに、ずっと勉強したいと思ってきたものを勉強する理由にはなるが、考え直せば、幼稚園に戻ってやり直す余裕がありません。
That was actually part of the reason I spent four years as an Assistant Language Teacher in the primary grades, but these days they really don't give the ALT/AETs much spare time for real study. Besides, I like the kids and the teachers and I really want to help out where I can.
本に、先ほどのキャリア寄り道、公立小・中学校で四年間を英語補佐として勤めたわけの一一部でしたが、現在の英語補佐の仕事の時間内には勉強できるほどの暇を割り当てていただいていません。また、本当は子供たちも先生方もできるだけ助けてあげたかったのです。
Great, as long as I'm spinning my wheels, why not push one or both of those ahead? When are the tests? The next Nihongo Kentei is scheduled for mid-November, I can register starting in August. The next JLPT is scheduled for December, registration begins in late August, materials available in mid-August. (Yeah, I know those links are going to go stale.)
よし。車輪を空転さしてる間、片方でも両方でも検定を推し進めるではありませんか。試験はいつに行うのだった。次回の日本語検定は十一月の中旬の予定です。八月から申し込みできます。日本語能力試験は十二月なので、申し込みは八月下旬からでき、教材は八月中旬から書店に着く予定です。（ハイハイ、予定のリンクは直に賞味期限切れになるって分かるよ。）
Uhm, yeah, I can pursue that, but I sure hope I have a job by then. If not, I'm going to be working short-term as a guardsman or something (again) and my family are going to have to move in with my wife's folks, since we won't be able to pay rent. (I don't think her dad will be happy.) Oh, and we'll have to take the kids out of juku. No more swimming for them, either.
さよう。試験の準備を追い進めてもいいですが、そこまでになっていると就職していなければ困ります。また警備などのバイトしなきゃいけないのですか。それどころ、家賃払えなくなったらうちの嫁さんの親の家に住み込みに行くのですか。（お父さん嬉しく思っていただけると思わないんですね。）さらに子供らの塾やスイミングスクールをやめさせなきゃいけないことも。
All those low-paying jobs are hard work. I don't mind the grunt work, but I would sure like to be paid enough to feed my kids and put them through school.
給料の低いバイトはみんなしんどい仕事なんだ。筋肉労働は構いませんけど、子供らに食べさして学費を払うほどの給与がほしいと思う。
So I went over to look at the Data Processing Specialist certifications. Erm, Information Technology Specialist. Whatever. Maybe those exams come earlier.
次第に情報処理技術者試験の様子を見に行った。もしかしてそちらの試験がもっと早いうちに取れる。
I have a bachelor of science degree in computer science. BSCS. It's not a brand new diploma by any means, but it should be enough to get me certified, at a basic level at least, right?
僕の持っている理学士のくらいは最新のものではないが、コンピュータサイエンスですし、少なくとも基本のレベルですぐに資格取れるはずでしょう。ね。
So I downloaded the most basic test from last year. They call it the "IT Passport Test"
さて、一番基本の去年の試験をダウンロードしました。いわゆる「ITパスポート試験」。
Let's see. What's the first question? The meaning of "data"? Something about places to find data? Something about distinguishing data that can be processed by a computer and data that can't?
見てみよう。最初の問題はどうでしょう。「データ」の意味？情報が見出せるところについての何か？機械で処理できる情報と処理できない処理を見極める方法の何らかの質問？
Erm, Something about process elements and algorithm construction? About program objects? About the concept of modules?
エエエッと、処理要素と手順成立の関連？
errrrrm, uhm, (Will they send me a take-down notice if I put even one question in here? I'll re-word it.)
アノーーッ、エエエエエエッと、（一問だけの問題をここに引用したら、そちらから掲載撤退知らせを出されるかな？言葉を変えておく。）
What strategy allows a company to bring in advanced technology and skilled technologists from another company?
どちらが戦略なので、その戦略によって他社の先進技術を自分の会社に持ち込むことができますか。
No way to re-word the answers and keep the meaning:
回答の言葉を変えることは意味がなくなる：
- M&A [??? Check the web for buzzwords. Ahah. エムアンドエー。 merger and acquisition]
- R&D [research and development, we assume?]
- アライアンス [alliance]
- 技術提携 [technical partnership]
This is not basic IT, this is business. IT business maybe, but business. Comparative interpretation of profits. Management techniques. Buzzwords galore. Gag. Patents in the test, too!!! Strategy, strategy, strategy!!!!!!
これは情報技術の基本ではありません。これは【業務よりも】営業です。情報技術関連の営業かも知りませんが、営業です。利益の比較的解釈。管理術。流行用語たっぷり。ゲッ。試験に特許も出るか？戦略、戦術、兵法、センリャク！！！
Deep breath. Let's go back and see if this really was intended as the entry-level exam.
深呼吸。ちょっと道に迷ったのではないでしょう？戻って、間違いなくこれが入門のレベルの試験かどうか確認しよう。
Yeah, that was level 1, and level 4 is all the individual topics. So this is not the inverted rank like the language tests I'm needing to take, where 1 is highest and 5 or 9 is lowest.
ウムッ。レベル１です。レベル４はそれぞれの科目試験。したがって、これが取らなきゃいけない言語の試験のように、一級が最上級なのに５及び９が最低級になっている訳ではないのです。
They've just made a business overview of the current state of the market the entry level test.
ただ単純に情報技術市場の現状の営業概要を情報技術の入門にしてしまってくれただけです。
Well, I guess I can handle that. I've seen this kind of craziness before.
まあ、いいか？こんな意味不明なのを過去に見たことはあるわ。
I would need to buy a recent book for the test to decode the buzzwords and the context of expectations, but it should be an easy read. Might be useful just to get me through interviews a little better. Don't really have the money, but maybe I can skip lunch for a week.
用語とその想定上の文脈を解読するに最新の資料を買えば。きっと難しい読書ではないと思う。それに、面接をもっとうまく通るのに便利かも。お金はきついなんですが、一週間ぐらい昼ご飯省けるかも分からない。
Old books like I'd find at the library are not going to be useful with these kinds of questions, of course.
無論、図書館にある一つ古い本はこんな問題に対処にならないでしょう。
Let's see, registration begins next week, the new materials should be available, the tests are mid-October. I don't see anything that tells me I have to start with the lower-level tests, I'll have to check the registration forms to be sure.
申し込みは来週からですね。新資料はもう、手に入ると思うし、試験が十月中旬です。低級の試験から取らなくてはならないような案内がないようです。申し込み用紙を見たらわかるはずです。
But it's still not really timely.
でも、十月にしても、僕には適時ではありません。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
