Comments for Program on Law and Technology at Columbia Law School http://columbialawtech.org Tech/Law news and program announcements Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:00:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Red Hat CEO praises Obama openness, calls for ODF adoption - Ars Technica by DanielBStern http://columbialawtech.org/blog/posts/664/comment-page-1#comment-203 DanielBStern Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:46:55 +0000 http://columbialawtech.org/?p=664#comment-203 Interesting that this should be shared here. The article was little more than a rant by Ars Technica writer Ryan Paul, calling Jim Whitehurst's (CEO of Red Hat) approval of Obama's transparency initiatives disingenuous and linguistically inaccurate. Paul thinks that Whitehurst intermingles the idea of open source with the implementation of it... ultimately, Whitehurst isn't being geeky enough for Ryan Paul. Nothing much more than silly tech snobbery. In truth, the ideas behind open source software, government transparency & accountability, and popular sites like twitter & facebook work and thrive because of what Whitehurst refers to as 'open source ideas;' which can be reduced to the idea of crowd-sourcing. Nothing really new in this article beyond Ars Technica drawing a fine distinction around something that wasn't being debated in the first place... At least not if you read Whitehurst's statement with attention to detail. Interesting that this should be shared here. The article was little more than a rant by Ars Technica writer Ryan Paul, calling Jim Whitehurst’s (CEO of Red Hat) approval of Obama’s transparency initiatives disingenuous and linguistically inaccurate. Paul thinks that Whitehurst intermingles the idea of open source with the implementation of it… ultimately, Whitehurst isn’t being geeky enough for Ryan Paul.

Nothing much more than silly tech snobbery.

In truth, the ideas behind open source software, government transparency & accountability, and popular sites like twitter & facebook work and thrive because of what Whitehurst refers to as ‘open source ideas;’ which can be reduced to the idea of crowd-sourcing. Nothing really new in this article beyond Ars Technica drawing a fine distinction around something that wasn’t being debated in the first place… At least not if you read Whitehurst’s statement with attention to detail.

]]> Comment on Computer Programming and the Law by Adam Wyner http://columbialawtech.org/blog/posts/666/comment-page-1#comment-169 Adam Wyner Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:27:20 +0000 http://columbialawtech.org/?p=666#comment-169 The interdisciplinary research Ohm mentions has been ongoing the last 20+ years in computer science and law. See the conferences "International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law" and JURIX. See the journal "AI and Law". However, the legal community has not been particularly interested in developments in this field. The novelty of Ohm's paper is that a lawyer wrote it for the legal community, which is very important. The interdisciplinary research Ohm mentions has been ongoing the last 20+ years in computer science and law. See the conferences “International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law” and JURIX. See the journal “AI and Law”. However, the legal community has not been particularly interested in developments in this field. The novelty of Ohm’s paper is that a lawyer wrote it for the legal community, which is very important.

]]>