APIs and mathematical languages (not an allegory)

(Copying and editing something I posted to groklaw:)

Went in to the other room to make my daughter's bed with this thought ringing in my head:

An API is an abstact language for commanding the abstract machine that is the program. And pretty soon copyrights look like patents and physical machines look like abstract machines, and the bases of property law disappear in a puff of smoke as everything becomes a metaphysical tangle of maths.

But let's fix that.

An automaton is an abstract mathematical machine. Some automata are models of real-world machines. Models of real-world machines vary in the degree to which they match the thing being modeled.

In theory, a really good model could be substituted for the actual real-world machine.

Programs are models of real-world machines and processes. When they work well, they are the poster children of the above principle, that a model can be substituted for the real thing.

(This is probably one of the primary sources of the illusion of software patents -- When we see a programmed model functioning as if it were a real machine, it's hard to that the program itself is an abstract model, and it's hard to understand that the thing which renders it a real machine is the combination of the CPU and the run-time model, oh! Deity, where is the termination condition for the recursion here?)

An abstract mathematical machine is equivalent to a mathematical language. Well, to a language plus the semantic mappings of the elements, by the time we humans finish interpreting the machine.

A mathematical language consists of vocabulary and grammar. (Natural languages differ from mathematical languages in that both vocabulary and grammar are fluid. In mathematical languages, The vocabulary and the grammar are fixed.)

A computer program is (the implementation of) a mathematical language, plus the semantics. This includes both (compilers for) programming languages and the programs written in those languages.

For instance, in the case of a program to add two numbers, the numbers are vocabulary, as is the addition command. The sequences in which the numbers and the command may be entered is the grammar. The semantic of this simple machine is the function of addition, and is somewhat independent of the language itself.

(There is a corollary to the principle of linguistics, that words have no inherent meaning, here.)

The language doesn't care about the output other than that the output shows (recognizes) whether the combination of vocabulary and grammar was valid or not.

In the functional (mathematical) model of this example, the numbers and the addition instruction are inputs, the addition operation, or transform, is (part of) the semantics, and the sum is the output.

An API is a set of inputs and validation rules for those input, with a specification of the expected operation or transform. Ergo, it is an abstract description of the language recognized by the abstract machine (ergo, the model) and its semantics.

In many cases, the API of real programs is not fully rendered in human readable form, thus the expression, "The code is the documentation." (Okay, in most cases, actually.) This is similar to the specifications of a physical machine not usually being fully exhaustive (especially in terms of error, failure, and other exceptional conditions).

We'd usually rather just get on with using the machine, you see.

So, when you dig down this far, you suddenly see all the frayed edges of all sorts of social artifacts, including the legal bases of property, itself. (Oh, nuts. Let's just get real and quote the preacher: "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, and there is nothing new under the sun.")

The architects of the Constitution and the original laws about patent and copyright understood the above, and that's why there was not supposed to be any intellectual property under the US Constitution. We post-moderns, excited with our actual implementations of maths in machines, have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Computers! Computers! We have our Computers, and we have no need of any further reality! (And we wonder why it is never really satisfying.)

If we get rid of the boundaries between real property and the somewhat intangible temporary liens on pieces of the market which copyright, patent, and trademark were intended to be, we find ourselves eroding the very principle of law.

And we shortly find ourselves without any protection left against either tyranny or the anarchy which tyranny hides.

(This came together better than it has in the past, I guess I'm going to copy this here and edit it a bit and then try to refine it a bit on my defining computers blog. Not yet for the refining part, though, I have a deadline hanging over me on a "real" job.)

pwning pieces of the mind

When we start talking about "intellectual property", we need to make sure that everyone knows what we are talking about.

That means we need to make sure we are not talking in implicit oxymoron, such as when one party to the conversation misunderstands how far property rights can extend.

It is quite possible to temporarily own mindshare, or to be the primary public agent of a meme. That's usually the purpose of modern advertising, unfortunately.

That's not what intellectual property is all about, although some people seem to be confused and thinking in that direction. That's not the only error, but it is one that you should check:

Are you wanting a patent or copyright on something the other guy is not going to be able to get out of his mind?

This is similar to having a patent (in the old sense) on tobacco or coffee or some other pseudo-staple. Or tea. (In case you missed the reference, I'm referring to the Boston Tea Party.)

US-Americans should remember where that kind of commercial behavior leads.

It should be obvious that one cannot own what is in another person's mind in the same way as one can own a home and rent it out to another person.

Sure, you can call the police and take things to court and stuff, but you can't prove that the other guys is thinking the "owned" property, and you can't be sure that he is not. That means you end up hanging real punishments on a person's word.

There is no surer way to pervert a lot of people's intent to be honest than to force them to choose between going to jail and lying about their thoughts. Sure, some serious fanatics would choose jail to declare publicly that their thoughts will not be coerced. Some others might choose jail for the free lunch.

But the population at large will ultimately choose duplicity in such a situation. That means, if you attempt to control thoughts by law, the law works against itself. Unless you are so cynical as to be trying to destroy the law by such tricks, that would be counter to your purpose.

That is one of the fundamental reasons for governments to acknowledge and respect freedom of thought. To do otherwise is to be self-destructive, and governments should not be programming themselves to self-destruct.

So, when we talk about intellectual property, we don't want to talk about thought control, okay? We don't want to talk about it in any hidden way, either.

Intellectual property needs to be re-named. The subject is material that takes intellectual effort to produce, but it is not but it is the effort, not the subject, that is intellectual. A more relevant appellation would be "intangible", but "intangible property" as a term seems to have been rejected. (Possibly because those who want to claim this stuff as property recognize that it would get them far less sympathy.)

Moreover, it is neither the effort nor the product of the effort that is the property. What we call intellectual property is a lien against a piece of the market commons. It is a temporary right to control production and/or distribution of a physical or literary/artistic product, or the trademark under which the production and distribution activities occurs.

As a property, if it can be bought and sold, it would have to be bought and sold in ways similar to stocks and bonds. But it has one huge difference. It has a built-in termination. (There is a reason for that, and it relates to the freedoms issue above, but I don't want to go there in this rant. In another rant, yes, but not this one.)

(Israel apparently had a built-in termination clause on certain kinds of commercial activities. It was called the Jubilee.)

It is not a property, really, it is a lien. A temporary lien. It's supposed to be that way.

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, all these things that are forced under the false rubric of "intellectual property", each one is separate. They can be combined in effect, but they are separate.

What they have in common is a monopoly principle. They are, indeed, monopolies, and that is one of the reason certain people who don't know how to compete on quality and service in a free market want them to own them.

Unlimited monopolies work against every government that grants them. Not just democracies, not just governments that recognize individual freedom, every government. If you give a person an unlimited patent on roads, it won't be long until that person or his successor in interest is holding the roads as ransom against the government, through the public interest, if not directly.

Likewise any staple food, or any food-like product that can be coerced into staple status. A history book with a copyright of too long a term could be made popular enough among educators to be considered indispensable, and then the printer producing that book has a wedge against the public interest.

If a patented memory circuit can be made part of a standard that gets adopted everywhere, it can be used as a weapon against all other memory manufacturers.

If a common term (like "windows" was a common technical term just a couple of decades ago) is allowed to be trademarked, and the trademark rights are allowed to be asserted in broad ways, the owner of the trademark can use the trademark as a wedge and a club against an entire industry, an evil that extends as far as the trademark can be asserted.

And so forth.

So, let's get this straight. "Intellectual property" is a euphemism for monopoly.

Now, do you still want to argue for making them unlimited?

lottery -- くじ引き

(Started this sometime back in March or April, didn't have time to finish or translate it.

これは先の三月か、四月の頃に書き始めたものですが、ちゃんと終わらせることも訳すことも、時間が足りなかった。)

My wife and children were listening to Doujou Youzo between NHK language programs this morning. He and his new assistant, Megumi, or Kyu-chan, were talking about the US lottery and comparing it to the Japanese lottery.

今朝、家の嫁、子供は道上洋三の番組をNHK 言語番組の隙に聞いていて、道上と新補佐の愛（めぐみ＝「きゅうちゃん」）が米国のたからくじを話題にして、日本の宝くじに比べていた。

The biggest Japanese public lottery is for a JPY ￥600,000,000 jackpot. (About USD $7,000,000 at the current exchange rate.) Apparently, a recent jackpot in the US was for $656,000,000 (Mega Millions, how late did they stay up thinking up that name?), split between three people. That would be, what? about $220 million each.

日本の第一大きい籤と言えば、６億円です。（現在の為替で７百万円。）アメリカの最近の大当たりはその百倍に近い６億5千６百万ドルを三人に分けられたたそうです。（「メガミリオンズ」というヤツ。何時まで起きていてそんな名前を考えたかな？）一人当たりおよそ、えぇっと、２億２千万ドルですね。

Hmm. Do they get to decide individually whether to take it lump sum or in monthly payouts?

さて、一括か、月々の方法でいただくのを一人個人で決めれるのでしょう？三人一同で決めなあかんかな？

Lump sum will chew into the total, as will taxes. (Apparently, Japan does not tax their lotteries. At least, the wikipedia articles I read did not mention any taxation.) But, even if they take the lump sum and can't find any shelters to postpone the tax hit, $70 million is not chump change. (English wikipedia article indicates lump sum can cut the total to a third of the published value. Of course, the wikipedia article could be wrong.)

一括なら、最後の金額は減らされるそうです。税金によっても。（ウィキペディアの記事で探したが、もしかして日本のクジは税金かからないかも知らない。はっきりと税金のこと言わないのです。）しかし、一括でもらって減らされて、税金を後回しにするための投資対策が分からなくても、７千万ドルは馬鹿銭ではない。（ウィキペディアの英語の記事によると、一括でもらった場合は記された値の三分の一までに減らされることもある。ウィキペディアは場合によって外れることもあるし。）

How much would monthly payouts be, assuming a 40 year payout? $460,000 a month?  Income tax is going to take a bite of that, too, but that's still gonna be more money in a month than I've earned in the last five years.

月々の場合は、４０年にかけて払ってもらうならどれほどになる？一ヶ月４６万ドル？それに税金かかるでしょうが、この俺が先ほどの５年間にかけて稼いできた給料を一ヶ月に、一期に上回ることになるでしょう。

Yeah. I succumb to daydreams about that kind of money sometimes. Even now, I could dream about buying my ISP and starting the next big internet thing.

まあ、空想にふけることもある。今すら自分の ISP を買収して、インターネットの次の大ヒットになる運動を開始する夢が見れる。

But when I think seriously about it, there are a number of problems.

だが、真剣に考えることになったら、問題点は多い。

One, money is not value. It is supposed to represent value. Value is something you generate by working an honest job. (Not just realize value, generate it.)

第一、お金は価値に等しくない。価値を代表するはずです。意味ある仕事を正直で働くことによって価値を作り出す。（見出すだけではない。作り出す。）

Lotteries suck the value out of our society just like pyramid investment schemes. Do you buy lottery tickets? Even though lotteries are legal, they are not significantly different in effect from Nigeria 419 schemes.

法に叶ったものにしても、クジはピラミッド型投資計画と同じように社会の価値をその社会から吸い出し、結局、法にしたがったものとされても、結果の実状では、ナイジェリア419条詐欺とそれほど変わりません。

You could, for instance, cut your lottery ticket purchasess by half and take the other half to places like kickstarter.

たとえば、ロットクジけんをその枚数を半分にして、余ったお金をキックスターターのようなところに持っていくことも可能なはずです。

Pig In a Poke -- 羊頭狗肉

これは以前に投稿した 福袋 の話をもうちょっとまとめたものです。

ドコモで家の嫁さんの携帯の切り替えに付き添いに行って、無線インターネットに目をつけて、自分も切り替えてアンドロイド器にしようと思った。

しかし、携帯無線ルーターも売ってくださる。

便利なのかな。

どこでもインターネット本格的に接続できる。

さらに、超小型ラップトップパソコンをお負けにしてくれる。

迷った。パソコンにリナックスを入れれると思って、ルーターの方を買っちゃった。

パソコンはもちろん、毎苦労ソフトウィンドーズスターターが入っている。
あの悪性アプリに脆いエムエスウィンドーズです。アンチウィルスは別売り。
このままではインターネットに乗れない。のったらダメ!

（こんなアホな営業には、裏にどんなお金が動いているでしょう。ドコモもLGも結構な損を被ると思う。）

まあ、リナックスを入れるつもりなので、大丈夫なはず。

だが、LG社が言うのはこのルーターの更新はエムエスウィンドーズのみ。マックもリナックスも対応外。こんな現代にこんなバカなハナシ。

インストールメディアもないので、リナックスを普通にインストールしてしまうとルーターの不具合が出たとき、更新できない。対照できない。（ウチの家には毎苦労ソフトのマシーンなんて、今まではなかったのです。）

全部のパーティションを使ってくださっているので、普通に、二重起動用のマルチブートインストールも不可。

この小型パソコンをルーター更新専用機に置いとかないとアブナイ！

結局、目的の出かけ先インターネット接続は、テザリングできるアンドロイド器を買うことになるでしょう。今のところはその方が使い勝手なのですけど。どちにしろ、アンドロイドアプリの作りかた勉強せな空かん。

ルーターもおまけのパソコンも役に立たない。

二年の契約を使わずそのまま寝かせるか、３万円で処分するか。

その値段だったらもっと好いパソコンを買えたはず。

エラいもん買っちゃった。

と言っても、実は、福袋のポストの英語を我慢していただけるなら、どうやってリナックスを入れたか読んでいただける。ただ、あのエムエスウィンドーズのシステムが崩れたら、ルーターの更新のためにインストールメディアを買わなっきゃいけないに思う。

無駄な作業ばかり。