Philosophy of Computer Science: Online Resources

Position Paper #4 Analysis

Here is a sample analysis of the argument for Position Paper #4.

As noted in the Thinksheet, there are three arguments:

Argument A = 1,2,3 ⊢ 4
Argument B = 5,6 ⊢ 7
Argument C = 4,7,9 ⊢ 10

All three are valid! Here's why:

1. If a hardwired computer program is a physical machine (premise 2),
   and if a physical machine can be patented (premise 3),
   then a hardwired computer program can be patented (conclusion 4).
   • This is just the transitivity of the subset relation or the transitivity of the implication relation, also known as hypothetical syllogism.

   • Note that Premise 1 really plays no role in this; I probably could have omitted it. But extra premises do no harm.

2. If a printed text of a computer program is a literary work (premise 5),
   and if literary works can be copyrighted (premise 6),
   then such computer programs can be copyrighted (conclusion 7).
   • Valid for reasons similar to A, above.

3. If a hardwired computer program can be patented (premise 4)
   and if a printed-text computer program can be copyrighted (premise 7)
   and if hardwired computer programs are the same kind of thing as printed-text computer programs (premise 9),
   then computer programs can be patented and copyrighted (conclusion 10).
   • Note that sentence 8 is not part of argument (C)!

   • Argument (C) depends on a fundamental law of equality: Things that are equal to each other have the same properties. So, you really only need to evaluate it for soundness; that is, are all of the premises true (or, more leniently, do you agree with all of the premises)?

Since Conclusion 10 conflicts with the law (8)—which you have to accept, even if you disagree with it—you cannot accept 10.

But the argument to 10 is valid, so at least one of 4, 7, 9 is false!

• But if 4 is false, then—because the argument to 4 is valid—either 2 or 3 must be false.

• Or, if 7 is false, then—because the argument to 7 is valid—either 5 or 6 must be false.

• Or 9 could be false.

Alternatively, if you are firmly convinced, for good reason, that 2, 3, 5, 6 are all true, then you must think that the law (as expressed in 3, 6, and, especially, 8) must be changed. How?

As I note in the grading scheme, Newell 1985-1986 argues that at least one of 2, 3, 5, or 6 is false (that is, "the models are broken"; §12.3.4 of the book), while Samuelson et al. 1994 argue that the law needs to be changed (§12.3.4 of the book).

• Newell, A. (1985-1986). Response: The models are broken, the models are broken. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47:1023–1031.
• Samuelson, P., Davis, R., Kapor, M. D., and Reichman, J. (1994). A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs. Columbia Law Review, 94(8):2308–2431