This was quite a lengthy article and honestly very confusing. I most definitely think it could have been written more concisely especially since the author repeated himself a lot. I also don't think he should have used an analogy throughout his post. I believe that an analogy should be used to further explain a point, and not entirely depended on throughout a post.
My first thought after reading was, "Who is this person?" He constantly used the term "we" for lawyers, computer scientists, etc. So which one is he, or none of the above?
His point of view on the way computer scientists look at ownership of ideas and the way lawyers look at it was interesting. It brought to mind the image of a bunch of computer scientists sitting in a room working on computer science-y things and as soon as they made any sort of breakthrough, emailing this to all the others so it might help them. A very honorable set up. But then I see some lawyers slinking in and whispering to one of the cs men about how he should be rewarded for his discovery and then the once collaborative group spirals downward into a now stagnant idea room.
I think the author was a computer science guy. I say this only because he knew in some depth why bits cannot have colour. Also, early in the article I think he said he was a computer science guy, but I could be wrong. I'll try to find it.
ReplyDeleteI also found the article poorly written and hard to follow (maybe because I think like a lawyer? Maybe?) As I am not an english major, I don't think I have much room to talk though.
I agree with you that it was confusing as to whether or not the author was a lawyer or computer scientist but I also agree with Josh because I'm leaning more towards the idea that he is a computer scientist. I was confused with the article though, too.
ReplyDelete