Samizdata

Let us imagine you are working on software for a mobile phone. When an SMS text message comes in you might think it would be cool to display it and highlight any email addresses or phone numbers in it. The user would tap an email address to add it to his address book, or tap a phone number to call it. It is a fairly obvious idea.

There are a few different ways you could implement it in software. I would probably have a bunch of regular expressions that matched phone numbers and email addresses, and for each type of match there would be a list of things that you could do. Have a think about what you might like to appear in a pop-up menu after you tapped an email address that appeared in a text message on your phone. I bet you can think of two or three things. Later you might think of new things to do with an email address, or new things that appear in a text message that could be highlighted so the user can tap them to perform actions on them. For example if someone sends a message saying “meet me at 7pm”, the user could tap where it says “7pm” and this time could pop up in the calendar to show whether there are already any appointments at 7pm. There are lots of things like this you could do.

To handle the possibility that you will think of these new ideas in the future, you write your software in a general way. You design general concepts like a pattern matcher that can look at some text and decide whether it is a phone number or an email address or some other text that you have not thought of yet. This sort of thing is done so often in software that the regular expressions I mentioned above were invented. This is a notation for describing strings of characters. For example the expression [0-9]+pm matches one or more of the digits 0 to 9, followed by the letters ‘pm’. Because this is done in software so frequently there are freely available software libraries that anyone can use and that given a text message and a regular expression will spit out a list of all the matching items in the text message.

There is some work in hooking up the various parts, but the point is that all the parts are known to programmers. We all know when regular expressions are useful, and we can all imagine how you would use lists of items that display actions such as “Add to address book” on the screen and then perform the action when activated by the user. I could write some code that would solve this problem in a general way in less than a day from first hearing a vague description of it.

The point is that it is obvious to anyone who writes software. Solving problems like this involves putting together some well known pieces in well known ways. I am emphasizing how obvious this sort of thing is.

The existence of patent 5,946,647 is not obvious. I can not really think of how I would find out about it without reading every single patent and I can not think of a guaranteed way to even know what to look for.

But if I write my obvious code in half a day, there is a good chance I would violate patent 5,946,647.

It is not certain. I have read the patent and it manages to convey the obvious idea in far too many words. So many that I would never be sure whether any given implementation fitted the patent. But there are only so many ways to do something this simple in software, and truly original ideas are rare. So the likelihood is high.

And Apple sued and a judge ruled that HTC has violated the patent and as a result will not be allowed to import devices with this software into the USA. This sucks.

The internet has been buzzing for a while about the incident of a woman, Emma West, who, as shown in a video, shouted abuse at people on a tram. It is not exactly clear from the clip what might have led to this, but regardless, it is pretty nasty and a young child sits nearby as she delivers these words. She has, according to reports, been subsequently arrested and charged.

Some people out there in the blogosphere are outraged by this turn of events – that West has been dealt with by the authorities, I mean. Initially, the libertarian in me agreed wholeheartedly, regarding this as an appalling attempt to enforce codes of conduct, including speech, in public places. It does make me deeply uneasy and I wonder whether the law would have come down like a ton of bricks on her had she just left, say, litter on the floor.

The blogger Old Holborn expresses such a view, for instance. Some people seem to suggest, in fact, that people like this woman have been provoked beyond endurance by the impact of mass immigration. Well maybe, although as a supporter of the freedom of people to move from A to B – so long as they do not expect state benefits – I don’t see why immigration should be halted because it offends people like this woman. After all, given that she lives in London, and that it is, thankfully, a cosmopolitan city and one of the financial capitals of the planet, she will have to face up the chance of meeting lots of foreign-looking folk on a fairly regular basis, immigration or not.

I had second thoughts about this business, however, when I considered that under the old Common Law (which libertarians often praise), and other laws too, an offence of “breach of the peace” might apply to this woman’s conduct; such a situation should, perhaps, involve no more than a rap over the knuckles from a magistrate and told to be of good behaviour. The same used to apply to people who got very drunk and disorderly, etc. This would not have anything specifically to do, as such, with being politically correct, as far as I can see. (There may have been elements of PC-ness in this case, of course.). The issue would be simply whether her behaviour was deemed likely to cause disorder, and of what the risk of that really was.

Also, from a property rights point of view, if a train/other service is run by a private company, say, then I would argue that the train company should be free to decide such matters, just as, in a perfect liberal world, pubs and clubs and other such places could so decide. (Alas, such principles have already been partly destroyed as in the outlawing of smoking in privately owned commercial premises). If I own, say, a theatre, and I saw a customer shout abuse of any kind at another in the bar, then I’d be within my rights as the owner of said property to kick the people out and if necessary, ban him/her from re-entering.

The context is also important in such cases, or it can be. It is one thing, maybe, to trade insults with someone in a fairly open place; it is another business if you are on a confined space such as a train carriage or small office and have to hear such abuse, in close proximity. The smaller the space, the more good manners matter. Indeed, think of how the word “civility” and “civic” run together – manners are a function of having to live close to one’s fellows. Institutions such as navies, where people have to sleep cheek by jowl, understand this point almost instinctively – hence all the seemingly petty rules.

These are issues where a healthy civil society is one in which certain behaviours are internalised, reducing the need for rules on such conduct to be enforced by things like police. We should not need to legislate so that mothers do not swear in front of their young children while verbally attacking strangers, or dumping litter on the pavement, or spitting, or urinating in public. And to a degree, the fundamental problem is that this internalisation of moral conduct has been hit by a variety of forces, including the Welfare State, breeding an often oafish, whining sense of entitlement. And it also leads me to the view that one of the most effective ways to restore civility is through private, non-state ownership of public spaces.

By the way, on a related topic, I can recommend Edward Shils’ classic, The Virtue of Civility.