So, now to get back to our usual analysis, when we talk in terms of creating this is this figure is from Colstad, we can do a similar kind of thing if we are looking at let us say any goods and services if we are looking at coal or oil or natural gas, we are looking at the quantity and we have the price. So, when we do this, we can create first of all a typical demand curve, so that means at a certain price, if you are looking at let us say coal, at a certain price there will be zero demand for coal and as the price decreases, the quantity increases, so this is the demand curve. On the other hand, if you look at the supply curve, we will find that there is a minimum amount of price which the supplier must get before they decide that they will supply that product. So, we will start with a minimum and as more and more quantity is demanded, more and more price, more and more price is there, more and more quantity will be supplied because at higher prices there will be others who will come into the market and so you will have a supply curve something like this. So here if you see, we will get this point which is the point of intersection which will give the price at which we will operate in the market, we can draw a straight line through this and this then becomes the quantity demanded and this is the price. Now what happens in this is, if you look at this, you will find that as we look at any particular amount of quantity, if you look at this point, at this point people are willing to pay a higher price than the price here. Since the market is clear at this price, all the entire quantity is now available at that price. However, if the quantity required was lower, you are willing to pay an additional price but we are getting it at this price, this difference is the surplus that is available to the consumer and when we integrate this total amount, this is the consumer surplus. We will define this in a bit. In a similar fashion, if you look at a producer, producer is getting this price, producer was willing to produce at this price as it goes on. At any point of time, you are getting this price but you are willing to produce. So, this part shows the producer surplus and if you integrate this again over the entire range of quantities, we will get this is the producer surplus and this total is consumer plus producer surplus. When you look at this, the consumer, if I fix some other price, if I had the market price at some other point, you would find that suppose we had it at let us say at a higher price then the producer surplus would increase, the consumer surplus would decrease and the total would actually decrease. So, you can actually show that in this particular case, the total surplus is maximized when we have this point as the intersection of the market clearing price. So, that is an interesting kind of a side. You can, we can actually show that this is the case. Now, let us define these, so the consumer surplus as we have defined as you can see in this case is that we have let us say consumption of Q star units for a consumer. We talk about any consumer which is, let us redraw this and let us now draw these as curves and we can, so in general, this will be the, this is the, this is quantity and this is price and this is the consumer surplus. So, you can see that this is the consumer surplus, this is P star and this is Q star. So, if you look at this, it is the Q star units for a consumer, the area between the demand curve, this demand curve and the horizontal line P is equal to P star. This is the line P is equal to P star. This area between Q is equal to 0 to Q is equal to Q star. This area under this curve is the consumer surplus and in a similar fashion, we can show the producer surplus. So, we can draw this and here now, again we have Q star and P star and this is your price and quantity. So, in this case when you define this, this is the way in which we have drawn this and now we are looking at the consumer, the producer surplus as the production of Q star units for a producer, which we were talking of, this is the point and the area between the horizontal line P is equal to P star, this is P is equal to P star and the supply curve between Q is equal to 0 and Q is equal to Q star, this is the producer surplus. So, with this we have defined, formally defined the consumer surplus and the producer surplus and to quickly sort of sum up, first we have looked at the arrows impossibility theorem, which says that there is no need theory of social choice, which meets all the six axioms that we had and then having said that, we then looked at the kinds of, when we talk about a market, we talked about the movement so that we are on the Pareto frontier, no Pareto improvements are possible, there are no inefficiencies in trade and no inefficiencies in production and then we said that there are these theorems of welfare economics, where we say that the competitive economy market equilibrium is Pareto optimal and then any Pareto optimum that we have can be achieved by the market forces, provided resources of economy are appropriately distributed before the market is allowed to operate. We also noted that the market says nothing about fairness or distribution of resources between individuals and equality or inequality, we then talked about the different assumptions which are there for creating a market and talked about the definition of the equilibrium market equilibrium, the consumer surplus and the producer surplus and we said that the equilibrium which is obtained maximizes the sum of the consumer and the producer surplus and this is the basis for saying that the market is a good thing to happen. We will see the assumptions which were there in terms of creating this analysis for the market, many of these assumptions often will not be relevant in the real world and then there are distortions in the market, where there is a need for government intervention, there is a need for policies and we will take a look at some of this. You can look at more details in the book by Colster or the book by Web and you can look up the Lawrence summer memo. We are going to now look at in the next module, we will look at the different kinds of goods and services, we will look at what are known as public goods and private goods and how do we differentiate this and then we will take that forward and look at how do we look at goods and services and the environment and try to see how we can include the environment in the calculations that we are doing for the market equilibrium. We have seen the concepts of market equilibrium and we said that the market equilibrium gives you gives us a Pareto optimal, it is a solution on the Pareto optimal frontier. We also said that the market equilibrium maximizes the total surplus that is the consumer surplus and the producer surplus. So let us take a simple example to illustrate the concepts that we have just learnt. So let us look at an example, we have a supply curve for petrol in a country where the price is given as 10 plus 2 Q. So it is a linear supply curve and obviously if the price is more, more of the producers will be willing to supply. So that is P plus is 10 plus 2 Q, the demand curve on the other hand is given as P is equal to 100 minus 4 Q where Q is the quantity and let us say that the P is the price in rupees per liter, this is an aggregate demand curve. So the Q would be for the country as a whole maybe in terms of some millions of liters or millions of tons but we will just look at it as a unit, physical unit and P is the price in rupees per liter. So the question which is asked is plot the supply and the demand curves and determine the equilibrium price and the quantity, what is the consumer surplus and the producers surplus and show these on the plot. So let us just do this. Let us draw first, write down the axis, this is Q, this is P and when we look at the supply curve that is 10 plus 2 Q, so when Q is equal to 0 the price will be 10 and it will increase as a straight line. And here when this is the supply curve P is equal to 10 plus 2 Q, in the demand curve it will when Q is equal to when the price is 100 there is no consumption and then when the price is 0 this will come to 4 Q is equal to 100, so Q will be equal to 25 and we will get something like this is 100, this is the demand curve, this point becomes the equilibrium point and this is the producer is getting this price, let us calculate that price, let us equate the 2 that is 10 plus 2 Q is equal to 100 minus 4 Q, let us just use another piece of paper and so you get 10 plus 2 Q is 100 minus 4 Q, so we get 6 Q is equal to 90 and Q is equal to 15 whatever units million tons, million litres put this back in the price, so the price is 10 plus 2 into 15 that is going to be 30 plus 10 that is going to be 40, so the price is 40 rupees per litre and the quantity is 15 whatever million tons are. So now when we look at this if you go back to the figure this is going to be 40 and this is 15, the shaded area that we have is the surplus of the producer because the producer is getting 40 rupees per litre and for at any quantity less than 15 when we look at it you are getting 40 but you are willing to pay the supply curve says it is a smaller value, so at any point this is the surplus which is the producer surplus when you sum it up over the total amount of Q this is the amount, so if we look at what is the producer surplus this is the producer surplus, we can find out this area, this area is going to be half it is a triangle half base into the height and this base is if you look at this this is 10, half into 30 and into 15, so producer surplus is going to be 15 into 15 to 25 units, the consumer surplus is like this at a price of 100 the consumer will not buy there will be no demand but at any other price the actual willingness to pay is this value and the actual payment is only 40 rupees, so this much is the consumer surplus, if you aggregate it over all the consumers this triangle which is shown here which I am now shading this is the consumer surplus, so the consumer surplus here if you look at it this is if this triangle the area is going to be half into this is 40, 100 minus 40 is 60 into 15, so this is going to be 30 into 15, 450 units total surplus then becomes it is also known as the market surplus, total surplus or market surplus, market surplus is 450 plus 225, 675 units, so we have solved this we have got the equilibrium point and we have got the total surplus, we have got consumer and the producer surplus now the question is that if the government decides to fix a price of let us say rupees 50 per liter explain what happens to a consumer and producer surplus is this price fixing efficient from a economic viewpoint, so in a sense for instance if you see actually in India today the x refinery price of petrol of petroleum products on that on top of that is taxes and duties, so the actual price that we pay for petrol is almost double of what is the price x refinery and this is because the government uses that as a revenue mechanism also wants to discourage the consumption of oil because we have so much oil imports, but if we now just said that let us say instead of 40 we would like to make this at 50 at this point then what happens to the consumer surplus and the producer surplus. Now what would happen is in this case if you see this area is reduced from the consumer surplus, so consumer surplus will reduce by this quantity the actual equilibrium value of supply would reduce and we can calculate this by putting in this point can be just calculated by looking at 100 minus 4 Q is equal to 50, so Q will be 12.5 Now when you look at this you find that basically now the consumer surplus has decreased by this amount and the producer surplus on the other hand has now become this amount because the amount of cost presuming that all of this money is going to the producer and not to the government as a tax, if we fix this then this amount of area is increased while this is decreased and this is the total, but as compared to the earlier case this small triangle that we have is the dead loss and this is the inefficiency because of the price fixing and as we saw earlier the total surplus that is producer surplus and consumer surplus is maximized at the point where we have the market equilibrium at the points intersect and if we fix any other price the total surplus would actually reduce. So, you can cross check and you can calculate for 50 rupees and you can calculate this area and you will see and so this is basically this is the reason why we say that the market is efficient and market equilibrium is the point at which we can get the Pareto optimality and the efficiency. Of course, this is subject to all the assumptions that we have made for the operation of the market.


Each time I'm used, somebody's found dead. Yet I bring delight and never cause dread. What am I? I don't know, it's a mystery. Do you know how some people just don't get puzzles? Like, you tell them that you've got a goat and a wolf and a cabbage, and you're trying to ferry everything across a river in a boat that can only hold one at a time, and they start asking whether the goat can swim, whether there's any rope to tie up the wolf, how the boat could possibly be cramped enough that a cabbage won't fit. They're clearly doing their best to figure out how to answer the question, but they're not really honoring the spirit of the thing. Although we use terms like puzzle, enigma, mystery, brittle, and brain-tease are interchangeably to describe both these sorts of games and various intellectual challenges we face in real life, we're aware on some level that proper puzzles aren't supposed to work like real life ones, that they only admit a certain kind of problem-solving. Yes, you're right, you shouldn't get into the boat with a feral wolf. Not the point. In a 1997 paper, education researcher and theorist David H. Johnasson suggested that although the sorts of things we characterize as problems can be split up in many different ways, simple or complex, short-term or long-term, and so on, these differences tend to cluster around three categories. Puzzles, well-structured problems, and ill-structured problems. Puzzles, like the goat-wolf-cabbage thing, are rigidly defined and totally decontextualized. You don't need to know why we're ferrying animals across a river. You don't even really need to know that goats eat cabbage. The problem is presented in its entirety by the puzzle ER with all the information the puzzle E needs to solve it baked into the problem statement. There's only one correct answer and it's pretty obvious in retrospect. That self-encapsulation and ease of verification makes them a favorite tool for researchers who don't have to control for things like individual experience or perception when they're testing cognitive processes. Well-structured problems are more like exam questions. All the relevant features of the problem and its goal are similarly well-defined and laid out for the solver, but they require interpretation and application of a specific rule or fact to solve. A cantilevered beam of length L, modulus of elasticity E, and moment of inertia I is mounted to a perfectly rigid wall. Calculate the deflection at its furthest end. The methods and concepts used to solve well-structured problems are generally clear-cut, orderly, and only really useful for solving other isomorphic problems. If you know the cantilevered beam formula, you can use it to answer any cantilevered beam question, but you're probably not going to use it to fix your computer or bake a cake. They're sometimes called transformation problems, because the puzzler is just translating information from one well-defined state to another according to definite rules. Ill-structured problems encompass pretty much everything else. Their domains, methods of solution, goals, and evaluative criteria for being solved are messy and hard to define. Picking an apartment, tuning up a car, negotiating political disagreements, losing weight, designing a city, getting a Mother's Day gift from your mom, you're not going to find these sorts of problems on an exam. They're emergent and deeply dependent on the context in which they occur. They often rely on discovering and evaluating multiple ambiguous contradictory and uncertain sources of information, as well as considering the epistemic relationships between the solver and that information. They admit numerous possible solutions, and different people might disagree on which one is really the best answer. The puzzle, well-defined, ill-defined problem taxonomy isn't strict. These are just well-populated regions on a continuum from low-context, convergent solution problems to high-context, divergent solution problems. There are, of course, outliers and edge cases that blur the lines a bit, but interestingly, although older models of cognition propose that the entire range of problem solving is fundamentally reducible to the same activity, more recent evidence suggests that as we move from one end of the spectrum to the other, there's a categorical shift in the skills, abilities, and processes used to problem solve that we're doing one sort of thing when we're playing a puzzle game and something totally different when we're planning a vacation or something. That might sound a little strange, because the way we usually talk about problems and problem solving has no clear distinctions of type. But if you think about it, there are definitely cognitive processes necessary for ill-structured problem solving that simply don't come up when you're solving puzzles. Like, there's never any need to consider alternate perspectives or weigh pros and cons of various answers to a puzzle. Once you've found an acceptable answer, you're done. You never have to evaluate its effectiveness or revisit it. Even having a clear prompt that explicitly calls for a solution removes a key obstacle for many real-life problems, which is trying to define and evaluate what the problem is or if there even is one. I don't know, is it really that bad if the goat eats the cabbage? Schra at all and many follow-up studies have found that proficiency in the domain of puzzles and well-defined problems does not predict similar proficiency in the domain of ill-defined problems, concluding that they require separate cognitive processes. Of course, just because they're separate doesn't imply they're totally independent. If someone's bad at solving structured problems, they're probably not going to be great at figuring out complex, ambiguous, poorly-defined ones. But it seems entirely possible to be a real puzzle savant who's totally helpless when it comes to planning a wedding. If you'll recall, back in episode 172, we discussed a phenomenon called engineer syndrome. The observation that engineers who make a living by reducing large complex problems to simple tractable models have an annoying tendency to exercise that method in fields they have no real expertise in or they don't actually know what can and can't be simplified without affecting the outcome. Look, your lab mice are clearly malfunctioning. Obviously, you should try unplugging them in the context of Donacian's taxonomy of problems. Engineer syndrome can be seen as one instance of a more general human error, mistaking one category of problem for another and applying the wrong sort of cognitive processes to try and solve it. That can certainly be annoying when someone keeps trying to use creative problem-solving skills to bypass the implied constraint of a puzzle. But if an architect tries to reassure you that you're in good hands by showing you their city skylines builds, you might want to look for someone else. Can you think of any examples of someone mistaking an ill-structured problem for a well-structured one? Have you ever met someone who thinks their skill at chess would make them a brilliant military strategist? Please, leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to subscribe to our channel and don't stop dunking.


Mae'r gweithio, yn fawr, a fawr iawn i'r gyflawni Emanuel Côlau, i'r lechau Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae'n fawr i'n fawr i'r fawr i'r profesi panliad Samuelson yma yma. Mae'r cyflawni Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Mae'n gyflawni Richard M Sherman, profesi Llywodraeth Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ac ymddirionedd Llywodraeth Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ond mae'n gweithio'r llyfriddol yma ar y Prydysgrifennu i gyflawni Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, o gyflawni Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, o unrhyw ychydig, o'r yn Llywodraeth, o'r Cornell, o'r Toronto, o'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ac oherwydd angen i'n ymgyrchonnig wedi'u gwneud. Ond mae'n hoffi'n ei bod yn ysgolod, yn gwneud hynny ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ac oherwydd iawn i'n gwneud ymddirionedd Llywodraeth.  Ond oedd byddwn yn y ddweud unrhyw o'n ddweud rhaid gael ei gweithio eich ysgol yn y Llyfrgellai Llyfrgell. Mae'r bwysig o'r amser o ran ysgol yma. Mae'r cyhoedd ymlaen yn y Llyfrgell Llyfrgell o'r arfer? Ymlaen i gael eich cyhoedd yn rhaid i'u cyhoedd ymlaen i. Mae'r ymlaen i'r ysgol yn llwyddon yn gystyried arfer. Mae'r llwyth yn llwyth, ac mae'n amser o'r gymryd yn ysgol ymlaen i'r ysgol. Mae'n rhaid i'r llwyth i'r cyhoedd ymlaen i'r ysgol. Felly, rydyn ni'n meddwl am gael y ffremio am y dyfodol yma, ychwanegwch a'r cymdeithasol i'w pryd-gwylio ar y rhagleniol. Rhaid i'n meddwl. Felly, rydyn ni'n meddwl am gweinwch Llywodraeth Llywodraeth ford gan gweinio ffordd yn gweithio ar gwaith yma. Mae'n gweld i'n meddwl am gweithio arill o'r reyfiadau. Mae'n ysgrifennu ar gweithio ar gyfer y gwaith a'r hynny o'r fath er mwyn i gael 30 yma yn llyfrneidol yn amser a fyddwch yn neb i gael hwn yn senol. Mae'r prydleidd hon yn dda i'n credu'n mynd i dda i fudio gyda chi o'r Lyfynol a'i hefyd oherwydd rwy'n meddwl y bobl oedd ymdegol yn Brad Sherman o arferwys Unedig y Llyfridol Ploedеннаяidd Llyfridol felly maeth bod yma yn yhe bwysig mewn Llyfridol. Efallai mae'n cael ei edrych yn Llyfridol. that you for that, and part of the why I mention that is not only is it a great book, so if you haven't read it, you should, but also because it was in the course of reading that book that I began to realize just how old the problem I'm interested in is and how difficult it has been to resolve it over decade after decade after decade. So we'll be revisiting some English history as well as old American history as well as new stuff. Now my initial motivation actually to pick this topic is that the issue about the patentability or copyright ability of aspects of computer programs is back up in the air in the United States. So, there's a lawsuit making its way through the courts right now that Oracle brought against Google. The reason that Oracle sued Google is because the Android platform software that many of you may have on your mobile devices is uses 37 of the 166 packages of the Java APIs. And the question about whether or not there's infringement is a question about whether the Java API packages are protectable by copyright law. And that question was decided by a district court judge saying, no, that's not copyright protectable. The Federal Circuit reversed that decision. And now the Supreme Court has the case pending before it, and the Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General of the United States to consider whether to take the case. That makes it actually 46 times more likely that the court will take the case. And so, it is something to be watched for. The SG will probably weigh in sometime in April or May. So the case won't be on the Supreme Court's calendar until next fall. But one of the reasons why this was a good topic for exploring this old question about functionality and expression, copyright or patent is because one of the arguments that Google has been making is that Java APIs should be protectable by patent law, not by copyright law. And the Federal Circuit has said, well, just because it's copyrightable doesn't mean it's not patentable. And just because it's patentable doesn't mean it's not copyrightable, so it doesn't make any difference. And some of us are not entirely satisfied with that Federal Circuit point of view. But the court viewed the argument that the API should be patented rather than copyrighted as an effort of Google trying to rip the copyright protection out from under oracle for the APIs that Sun created years ago. Now, application program interfaces are intellectual creations that software developers carefully engineered to set the terms on which information is going to be exchanged across the boundary of one program to another in order to enable them to inter-operate effectively. I found it helpful to analogize interfaces of computer programs to the precise configuration that a plug has to have in order to fit into a socket in order to inter-operate with the electrical grid. You want the electricity to flow. You want the boundary to be broken. You basically have to conform to that precise configuration. APIs are sometimes printed in a specification document and sometimes admitted in software code. But APIs really are a fundamental part of what computer programs are about. Now, Sun, before it was acquired, its assets were acquired by Oracle a couple of years ago, so Sun had created these Java technologies, including a set of APIs. And the idea behind Java was that you'd be able to write a program that would basically, you could write it once and it would run everywhere, right? That's at least at the time when we were looking at PCs and servers, there was this idea that we want to break out from the kind of Microsoft proprietary technology and be able to essentially not have to rewrite programs every time. And the APIs that were created for that were actually something that was an important component of the aspiration to be able to do this kind of write once, run anywhere. And Sun, it must be said, was one of the foremost proponents of all the companies in the United States and indeed the world, saying that people should be free to re-implement an independently written code APIs that are developed by whoever. So the Java APIs, as I said, consisted of 166 packages. Each of the packages is hierarchically organized so that there are a set of classes below that and a set of methods that are below that in the hierarchical structure. And I thought it would be helpful to give you just an example of what kind of Java declaration or method header is involved in the case. So there are roughly 6,000 to 7,000 method headers or declarations that are specifications for Java programming. And this is the example where the package is Java lang, the class is math, and the method is basically to compare two numbers and decide which one is bigger than the other. So this is the specification that Java prescribes for achieving that. So the Java command here calls for carrying out this mathematical operation and the line of code here essentially is a more concise expression of that mathematical method. But the method is carried out by code that implements this more precisely. Now the question is something like the method header we just looked at, the command we just looked at. Is that copyright subject matter, patent subject matter, both, or neither? And it is a bit of a puzzle because if you look at the selection and arrangement of words and symbols, it looks more like copyright subject matter than it looks like patent subject matter. But the truth is that there are quite a few API innovations that have been patented. And so it's not entirely outside the bounds of the patent system seemingly if patent offices are issuing patents on these kinds of designs. And the trial court found that Google had written its own implementation code for carrying out these methods. And so there was, at least at the trial court's view of this, no literal infringement. The question was whether or not re-implementing the structure sequence and organization of the APIs was copyright infringement or not. So that's the kind of deep question and now I'll kind of go into a little bit of background. I'm not going to talk about the copyright and patent paradigms. We both know, we all know that the patent system requires you to apply it. You have to have novelty and some sort of invention to qualify for it. And if you get protection, you don't get protection forever. You only get for relatively limited time by comparison with copyright. Of course copyright provides automatic protection for authors of literary and artistic works that meet the originality standard, but it lasts a really, really, really long time. So the concern about patent and copyright overlapping is an old problem. But of course it's been a kind of convention that there's kind of like patent subject matter over here and copyright subject matter over here and they don't have any blurry lines. And in fact they do have blurry lines. But that paradigm of separability in some sense of inventions and artistic and literary works is embedded in the US Constitution, which I show you here. So this clause is often understood in the United States as essentially being two clauses in one, right? One granting Congress the power to promote the progress of science by granting to authors exclusive rights for limited times in their writings. And the second clause is the one that says that Congress has the power to promote the progress of useful arts by granting to inventors exclusive rights for limited times in their discoveries in the useful arts. So I've bolded and italicized the words to just try to emphasize it. But notice that word, respective, right? The word respective basically says, oh it's over here and oh it's over there and what do you do when something has a little blurry stuff in the middle? So the question first came up in the United States in the Baker v. Selden case back in 1880. So Selden had developed a new bookkeeping method and he published a little pamphlet about it. It had a little bit of explanatory text at the beginning. But mostly the book, such as it was, consisted of a series of forms and he kind of put in a few kind of sample entries to give you kind of an idea about how to enter data in it. Baker came along later and published a book and had forms in his book that were substantially similar to the forms in the Selden book. And Selden's widow then sued Baker for copyright infringement. And interestingly enough, I know this because I read the entire Brimgort record, that Selden claimed copyright protection not only in the book, but also separately copyright protection in the bookkeeping system. So the court, the Supreme Court, was faced with the question about whether or not the scope of copyright protection in the Selden book extended to the system or whether there was separate copyright protection in the system and the Supreme Court said no. So the Supreme Court came upon this, I think partly because in the preface to Selden's book, he actually mentions that he sought a patent for the bookkeeping method. Apparently he hadn't gotten one, but I think that ended up being very influential on what the Supreme Court had to say in this case. So the court was very clear that the copyright in Selden's book protected his explanation of the system, but did not extend to the system itself. The bookkeeping system itself was in the court's view a useful art, which was protectable, if at all, by the patent system, not by the copyright system. And the court used a number of examples to illustrate why nobody in their right mind would think that if you wrote a book about how to treat a particular disease with a medicine, or if you wrote a book about how to write and make a new plow that will cause the farming to be more efficient, nobody would think that you get copyright protection for the plow or for the medicine. And so if you can't get copyright protection for the plow or the medicine, you can't get it for the useful art of bookkeeping either. And so that's one of the important things that the court had to say about this. And the Supreme Court has some pretty strong language in there that it would be a surprise and a fraud on the public if you allowed someone like Selden to get through copyright a longer period of protection than they would get if, in fact, he'd been able to get the patent that he'd tried to get. But notice that the way that this is framed is really this kind of what I call a kind of categorical exclusivity approach, which is like something is either protectable by copyright or is protectable by patent, but never the train shall meet. Those, the subject matters are entirely separate. And we find that very similar things showed up around the same time in England. So the Davis versus Committee case was a case involving the face of a barometer. So even though there was a registration with the station or company, the court went faced with an infringement claim said now it's an integral part of the machine. It's not really it's not really artistic or literary work. And it kind of too adopted this kind of like inventions of inventors and literary works and authorship or kind of distinct types of regimes. There is also an old English case that cites to Baker v Seldon and refers to it in part as saying that this kind of the dress pattern was a mechanical contrivance that was ineligible for copyright protection. Now categorical exclusivity was kind of like part of the Baker v Seldon tradition on tell a case called Maser versus Stein. And this is a place where the American story has its own little flavor. So Stein was a guy who created a statuette of a Balinese dancer and used it as kind of the base of a lamp and then put the lampshade, kind of strung wire up the center, put a little thing on the top and then had a lampshade on it. But the Balinese dancer was initially a statuette. And so he registered the statuette with the copyright office. But Maser was like so oh man that Balinese dancer lamp is really selling well. I want to copy it. So he went ahead and copied it and said look there are lots of lamp based designs that have been protected by design patent law. So under the kind of Baker v Seldon exclusivity approach it shouldn't be copyright subject matter. And I think actually at the time the sense of many American commentators was yeah that's probably right. And part of the reason for that is again to get a design patent. The design had to be novel and non-obvious and you had to apply for a patent just like the utility patents and since Stein hadn't applied the design was arguably in the public domain and so what to do? Well the copyright office as it happens had been issuing registration certificates to works of artistic craftsmanship for quite a few years and it was considered that the statuette that Stein registered was one of the things that fit that category. So it was okay and here the Supreme Court says just because something's patentable doesn't mean it's copyrightable that being kind of true for something where you could sort of say there is a bit of subject matter overlap between design patents and copyrights in respect of things like this statuette. But I think the kind of core ruling of Baker v Seldon was still intact because the court wasn't talking about copyright and utility patent. There's never been something in the United States that's been protected by both of those things at the same time. So categorical exclusivity has lived on in the minds of many Americans since then. Now part of what we know is that the laws in England and also in the United States provide some tools with which to manage the boundaries between patents and copyrights in the US and between copyright and design rights in the UK. And so I wanted to kind of just mention a couple of them. So unlike the UK, the United States basically says that if there is any functionality of a pictorial sculpture on graphic work that cannot be separated from the kind of the way in which it either displays impurence or conveys information, right? If there's any integration of functionality and expression in a pictorial sculptural graphic work, the whole thing is unprotectable by copyright law. So furniture, all kinds of designs that actually might be eligible for copyright protection in the UK, those things are ineligible for completely ineligible for protection under US copyright law. And we have a separate statutory provision that basically says that the copyright and a drawing of a functional design doesn't mean you get copyright protection for the functional design. The drawing is protected as a drawing and the functional design can be re-implemented. So there's an old case in which somebody drew a design for a parachute. The United States government started making parachutes like that. The guy sued for copyright infringement and the court said no. It's basically under the kind of the penumbra of the Baker v. Selden case, it was ineligible for protection. In 1976, Congress added a particular provision intending, too, for that provision to help to manage the boundary between copyrights and patents in that section 102B, which reads that in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of how it's embodied in the work. Now, I've highlighted, I bolded here, the words that I'm interested in because I don't know what those words mean in relation to computer programs, although I do know that Congress added those words to the statute for the specific purpose of making sure that the scope of copyright protection in computer programs would not be too broad. So that's what they said at the time that they adopted it. There's also a concept, again, not when I think that you find in UK law that it's called the merger doctrine, where the notion is that if an idea can be expressed in essentially only one or a very small number of ways, it's not eligible for copyright protection because the concern about not protecting ideas is so strong that even if there's some expression that's intermingled with it, you don't protect it at all. And there's a question, a very big debate, and it's core to what's going on in the Oracle v. Google case about whether or not merger means only that when you're first trying to create something, is there any other way to do it? If there's no other way to do it, then there's merger. Or is it the case that something could be creative at the time that you made it, but constrain the design decisions of subsequent people in a way that makes it capable of merger in the long run? I'll give you examples of that as we move through this, but that's one of the big debate issues. Now, again, you know these rules better than I do, but I think that it's interesting that the UK, too, had a kind of categorical exclusivity between designs and copyrights for a period of time. Then it shifted to creating a kind of defense for certain kinds of designs, but as it turned out, the unregistered functional designs ended up being eligible for full copyright protection for a time and so the screws and exhaust pipes were protected by copyright law and that just didn't seem like an artistic or literary work that we wanted to use copyright for. So there were a set of reforms and over lunch today, Lionel tells me that Section 52 is slated at some point for extinction, but too bad for that. But I'm just noticing that there are some similarities between the tools that are part of the UK tradition and the tools in the US tradition. I think Section 51, for example, is pretty similar to Section 113b that I talked about a little while ago. Okay, so let's get back to computer programs for a minute or three. So, yeah, source code, listings of computer programs, literary works, no problem. That's one of the reasons why they initially seemed to be eligible for copyright, although back in 1964 the US Copyright Office initially issued registration certificates under what it called its rule of doubt, like, I'm not really sure that computer programs are really copyrightable, but I'll give you a certificate and if you want to sue somebody for infringement, you can, but we're not saying it's really copyrightable. That's kind of weird, but that's one of the things that they thought. And why did they think that? It was because in executable form, computer programs are machine processes, they're virtual machines, they're machines that are constructed in text, and so it seemed like that's not eligible for copyright protection, and it's notwithstanding that reservation eventually Congress decided to treat the executable forms of programs the same way as the printed source code versions, and of course, as you all know, the Software Directive and the Trips Agreement embody the same norm that copyright is available to computer programs as literary works. But again, the question about what these words of exclusion mean is kind of up for debate, just like the provisions in the Software Directive about to the extent that interfaces, logic, and algorithms are ideas or principles are not protected by copyright law either. Well, what does that exactly mean? So it's a similar kind of puzzle. And the question about whether or not there's a rule for pads to play in protecting software is kind of up in the air too. Now, pads have had a really complicated pattern in the United States, and the time, the cases that I'm going to be talking about in a minute were being decided from the 60s to the kind of mid to late 80s, and the general view was that you couldn't get patent protection for computer programs or elements of computer programs such as algorithms that might be innovative but were ineligible on one or another grounds, and a guy named Benson came up with an algorithm for transforming binary coded decimals into a binary form. Supreme Court in 1972 said that's not protectable by patent law. That's basically a mental process or an abstract idea. And so there was this kind of like no patents available for a very long time. But from the early 19 or late 1980s through the mid 2000s, around the Federal Circuit essentially granting ever broader scope of protection for computer programs, essentially everything under the sun made by humans was considered patentable subject matter for that period of time. Hundreds of thousands of software patents were issued during that period of time. And one of the things that's happened since the rise of patents in that period of time is that courts in the second wave of decisions said, oh copyright doesn't have to be that broad because there's a role for patent to play in protecting certain aspects of software. And so here are the main cases. So again in the era before the rise of software patents, you had three main cases that took a pretty broad perspective about copyright protection for computer programs. So in the Apple versus Franklin case, the court decided that exact copying of operating system program code was an infringement. That was actually not so bad, but one of the things that the court said in that case is that you may want to become compatible with another machine or with another operating system or with another program, but that's just a competitive objective. It doesn't completely irrelevant to the scope of copyright protection and computer programs. And so seem to be signalling that if you copy the interface of a program to inter-operate that that might be copyright infringement too. The Whalen versus Jaslow case was the kind of high watermark of protection, at least until the Oracle v. Google decision by the Federal Circuit, where the guy who was a dental laboratory self-taught programmer re-implemented a program that he'd hired somebody else to do because he didn't like her, I think, anymore. And he wanted to write it for an IBM PC. Anyway, he copied some of the structure sequence and organization of the internal design of the program and some subroutines. And the court decided that copying of SSO, wether it's the way subroutines operate or whether it's the internal design, what file structures, data structures, and the like, that that was copyright infringement, unless there's only one way to perform a function, if there's only one way to perform it, then that's unprotectable. That's a case of merger of ID and expression. But Whalen took the view that the only unprotectable ID in a program was its general purpose or function. So all of a sudden computer programs are going to have way more copyright protection than any other kind of work in the whole universe, and that sort of seemed a little wrong to some of us who were commenting at the time. The Lotus who picked back decision was, Paperback was a company that made a kind of, what they called a work-alike program to Lotus's 1, 2, 3 spreadsheet program and copied the command hierarchy of the spreadsheet program was held as an infringer, and all three of these cases, the courts basically said, look, this provision about no copyright protection for process procedure system method of operation, it's just nothing more than a restatement of the ID expression distinction, and we can't take it literally because if we do, then computer programs wouldn't be protectable at all, and so let's just say that it doesn't mean anything. Now there was a case in 1992 that turned the tide called Computer Associates v Alltie by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and it turned the tide in a number of ways. So one was it recognized the functionality of computer programs and recognized the functionality of computer programs meant that there should be a limited scope of protection for the internal design elements of computer programs. It recognized that Section 102b was about trying to stop copyright protection for functionality of programs and said that, you know, if somebody had adopted, for example, a kind of a highly efficient way of doing something in a computer program, we shouldn't use copyright protection to allow that person to fence off that most efficient way to do something. So on a kind of merger-like analysis, the efficient design then is available for re-implementation by other companies and court recognized that there were constraints that might be imposed on subsequent programmers either by the hardware with which they were trying to work or the software with which they had to interoperate and so compatibility considerations under computer associates of the Altai meant that there was not as much copy... not as broad a scope of protection and the court basically threw out this notion of SSO, a structure, sequence and organization saying it's just not helpful. Yes, some non-literal elements of computer programs may be protectable by copyright law but SSO is basically not a very useful way of trying to do it. The court also recognized that copyright for software was kind of weird, it was really hard to apply and so one of the things that it also said is maybe some of the aspects of programs should be protected by patents, not by copyrights or if there was a gap in protection maybe Congress should do something about it rather than trying to stretch copyright to reach something that it wasn't intended to do. The Seigabee Athletic case was a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case out in California that was the first case to recognize that reverse engineering of a computer program for a purpose such as getting access to the information necessary to write a program that would interoperate with an existing platform was not copyright infringement. We call it fair use. You have a decompilation privilege. It allows you to do something similar but importantly the court of appeals in that decision talked about the SEGA interface that Accolade essentially extracted from the code that it reverse engineered as an unprotectable procedure under section 102B and moreover said, you are trying to get patent-like protection through copyright and we're not going to let you do that. Congress chose not to protect these kind of aspects of programs and so there. Lotus v. Borland is the last in the series of cases that are part of the second wave. Borland-like paperback made a program that allowed people who had constructed macros, little programs of common sequences of functions that they did on a regular basis. You could like do one macro stroke and have that series of things essentially executed and Borland had both what they called a native interface so if you had never used Lotus 123 we think this is a better user interface you should use that but if you've been using Lotus and you've constructed macros and it will help you decide to come over to the Borland better program if you can re-execute your macros so the emulation interface then presented exactly the same commands in exactly the same order in Lotus 123 and the reason for that was because you can't execute the macros unless the thing is in exactly the same order. Now Lotus basically said, hey, the command hierarchy is part of the structure sequence and organization of the program and under Whalen v. Jazzlow in cases like that it's a protectable part of the program and there's no merger of idea and expression because hey, when we set out Lotus initially we could organize the commands whatever way we wanted so the fact that Borland had its own native interface shows you don't have to use the same stuff Borland's argument was that the commands had to be in exactly that order for the macros to execute and therefore there was a kind of merger of idea and expression or there was a kind of system the macros were a system so that things had to be in this particular order so the fact that it might have had a choice initially is irrelevant because the people who have invested in creating macros want to be able to use those macros you shouldn't have to learn how to write macros all over again part of the macros system and therefore ineligible for protection under section 102b First Circuit Court of Appeals ended up deciding that the command hierarchy of Lotus 123 was a method of operating a spreadsheet program to fulfill some functions and so it was unprotectable under section 102b kind of likened it to the buttons on a VCR machine just more buttons but essentially the same kind of idea and so Lotus appealed that case to the Supreme Court after hearing oral argument on the case the court split 4-4 and so kind of left the question about whether a command structure of a computer program is part of what's protectable by copyright law or not one of the things that Borland argued during that case was a command hierarchy of macros systems are patent subject matter they found patents at an issue for some of these things and so made the argument that it was ineligible under Baker v Selden for copyright protection now a very similar case actually came up in the UK High Court got referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union obviously the legal context is a little bit different but one of the main defenses here was that users of the SAAS statistical analysis program had written these little mini programs like the macros these were called Scripps and they were like common sequences of statistical methods that you went to do on a regular basis and so people wanted to be able to use their Scripps if they were going to port them if they were going to be able to use another program they wanted to like take the investment that they made here and be able to run them over here so WPL essentially re-implemented the functionality of the SAAS statistical analysis program and the court decided that the functional behavior of a program that is to say the fact that you're emulating a functionality of another program that's not copyright infringement the Scripps had a little language just like the macro language and the Scripps language was not protectable by copyright law in the EU and neither were the data formats all of them were unprotectable ideas under the software directive and Mr Justice Arnold referred these questions this and other questions to the CJEU which basically agreed with him on those issues and I have the honor of having co-authored a paper with Professor Cornish on this particular case the result actually comes out to be almost the same the legal issues are very similar to the Lotusby Borland ruling and that was actually one of the arguments we were making let's try to have a compatible legal idea one thing that's actually worth mentioning is that the Court of Justice of the European Union actually invoked the TRIPS agreement which talked about the unprotectability of methods of operation and procedures as kind of a part of the basis for this and so there is a bit of harmonization there at least in terms of TRIPS kind of giving us more of a connection to each other back to the Oracle v. Google case so you find the trial court having relying on the ALTI and Sega Viacoli decisions for the propositions that trying to promote interoperability is a good thing and Google said one of the reasons that we adopted these 37 Java API packages was so that people could interoperate the programs that have been written in Java could run on the Android platform and things that have been written on the Android platform could run on other Java systems and the Lotusby Borland case was important because the Court said that hey, these are commands just like in the Lotusby Borland case and they're either a method of operation or a system and therefore unprotectable by copyright law alternatively the Court said look, you have to use exactly the same names for these functions in order for the Java APIs to work and so that's actually an alternative basis for the decision the Court rejected the idea that this SSO structure sequence and organization was a way to conceptualize what computer program elements might be protected and said there's a danger of giving too broad a protection to computer programs because that may make it a little bit too much like pass now the Federal Circuit in its decision reversing the trial judge said hey, at the time that Sun was first designing the Java API packages they had lots of choices they were really creative and so there's no merger of idea and expression because at the time that they set out to do this in the first place they were not under any kind of design constraints based on pre-existing systems the Court rejected out of hand the notion that there's a compatibility exception to copyright and kind of puts a little dig in also because instead of using all 166 Java API packages Google only used 37 of them now those 37 were selected because the testimony says because these would be appropriate to the use of Java on a mobile device one thing to know is that Java was originally kind of created with the idea that it was going to run on PCs and on servers not on mobile devices and so there was kind of an adaptation going on because of that but the Court of Appeals Google intentionally designed this to be incompatible with Java and what they were really trying to do was take a free ride on the investment that Sun and Oracle had made in getting Java adopted there are now 6.5 million Java programmers who use these API packages on a regular basis and they know the commands they want to be able to use them and this is free riding by the bad guys is Oracle's position on that and as in the earlier cases the Court saw 102B as being nothing but a restatement of the idea expression distinction so Google has asked for Supreme Court review of this case and it's a case of exceptional importance for the software industry there's a conflict among the circuits about what section 102B means there's a split in the circuits about whether there's a compatibility exception to copyright there's a difference also among the circuits on what the merger doctrine means and they also make this argument that APIs are pat and not subject copyright subject matter and one of the reasons the Court so when the Supreme Court takes cases they often take them when there's a circuit split here you have a situation where 20 years ago the Supreme Court split 4-4 on exactly the same legal issue and guess what the circuit splits have gotten deeper because the Court wasn't able to resolve it back then so the question is what to do so Oracle of course says no, don't take it and is very happy with the Court of Appeals decision I think the patent subject matter argument is the weakest part of Google's argument up to date partly because I showed you one of the Java API specifications it just doesn't look patentable it looks copyright predictable of anything in an article I wrote with a couple of other people back in 1994 a manifesto on legal protection of computer programs we identified that a lot of the value in computer programs really comes from them being industrial compilations of applied know-how and I see something like an API or an API specification as one example of that and we made an argument that you know you're going to either under or over protect these kinds of industrial compilations of applied know-how if you use copyright so if Suey Jenner's form of protection would probably be a better idea but that's water under the bridge but more importantly the Supreme Court has not found categorical exclusivity to be appealing since the Baker v. Selden case the patents might have issued an error they may be at a different level of abstraction and guess what? it turns out the patents are eroding now so last June in the Alice v. CLS bank case the Supreme Court ruled that a computer implemented method of settling financial transaction risk was unpatentable subject matter it was too abstract an idea to be eligible for protection since then hundreds of software patents have been thrown into question and dozens of them have actually been repudiated as ineligible for patent protection altogether now one of the things that's kind of interesting to me is that a lot of these things are part of the structure sequence and organization programs so wouldn't it be like completely weird if they're too abstract for patenting and yet because they're SSO under the interpretation given in the federal circuit they'd be eligible for copyright protection even though not for patent protection this drives me crazy I don't think that's what Congress had in mind but you never know part of what may have motivated the federal circuit and the ruling that they made in the Oracle v. Google case is Judge O'Malley who wrote the decision for the federal circuit actually was one of the judges of the federal circuit who would have upheld all three types of Alice's software patent claims and I think she's worried that if the Supreme Court is kind of pulling the rug out from under the patents for software by gum she's not going to let the copyright get gutted and so she's basically protecting copyright for all she's worth now in this particular decision but of course one of the questions that's interesting here is whether if in fact patents recede should the scope of copyright expand because now they're less protected okay so I promised you actually some pragmatic approaches so let me give you two one is a legal one and one is a kind of realistic one so the legal one is basically we've been able in a lot in America anyway been able in a number of kinds of circumstances to separate functionality and expression through various doctrinal and statutory mechanisms and we should be able to do that with respect to computer programs too so Supreme Court did it with Seldin's forms and the explanation, Stein's lamp base as a statuette there are a bunch of ways in which it's like architectural works are protected but the scope of copyright protection and architectural work doesn't extend to the wiring and the plumbing and the things that are basically conventionally functional design elements of those and I think in same measure we should be able to say that program code is clearly expression but things like algorithms interfaces should be unprotectable by copyright land part of what's happened here is that that literary work metaphor that we use to describe computer programs it's sent us off in some weird directions we recognize that functionality was present as in the design area that UK has been dealing with some overlap then we wouldn't be quite as confused so what's the pragmatic approach number two so it's to recognize that copyright is doing a lot of good work in protecting computer programs so mostly it's the code and those expressive parts of a program such as video game graphics and sound that may be just like a regular audio visual work and we should keep our minds open to the possibility that some non-literal elements of programs should be eligible for copyright protection but let's scrutinize them a little more carefully than we've done so far because many of them perhaps most are excludable under section 102B and languages, behavior, interfaces, logic and algorithms really should be beyond the scope of copyright protection in programs but more importantly most of the internal design elements of computer programs don't need copyright protection because they are adequately protected through trade secrecy law and through licensing for the most part it's really difficult and expensive to reverse engineer a program to extract non-literal elements of programs you don't do it unless you really have to and more importantly if you ask software developers what's really important to you is the competitive advantage in the marketplace and I've done a survey of software entrepreneurs and I know the answer to this question first mover, advantage and complementary assets are way more important than copyright, trademark, trade secrecy let alone patents very few software companies in the United States actually get or even apply for patents they don't really think that they're useful to them in attaining competitive advantage let's not worry so much about the receding of patents that's actually not a bad thing for the software and copyright is important by comparison with patents but it's not really that important as these things go except for the protection of code so in conclusion we sort of see that patents and copyrights have a long history of trying to like essentially navigate ways in which to protect appropriate things not get in each other's way there are doctrinal ways to get out of this I think that APIs and command structures are examples of things that probably shouldn't be protected by either copyright or by patent although they can often be protected as trade secrets but we can get lost in the worst possible but we can get lost in this metaphysical model if we try to separate functionality and expression in programs it will make you just completely crazy if you try to do that so let's not drive each other crazy let's just develop a couple of simple rules and as a pragmatic matter just basically relax a little bit software industry is doing real good but Google should win this case www.google.com www.google.com


Hi everyone, Joe for Jazmy's casewrakes.com. One more break, 2023 Bowen Sterling Baseball, one box, round division number nine. Big thanks to Danny for finishing it off late at night. Michael, thanks for grabbing the first spot. Both of you have a chance at an extra spot. So let's roll it, randomize it. Three to three, six of the hard way. One, two, three, four, five, six. Rex, you buy four spots. You buy four spots in a Sterling break, Sterling break division, which you've never done. And I'll stay up late for you. All right, so after six times, Danny, last spot, Mojo, and the extra spot. So you've got five of the six divisions. There are the divisions right there. Let's roll it, let's randomize it. Four and a five, nine times each. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ninth and final time. Five and a four, four and a five, nine times of the divisions. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and a ninth and final time. AL West down to the NLEs. I don't think Michael is here, Danny. So no trade window. But, Danny, you have all the divisions except for the NL Central. So let's sort by division, let's box these up. Let's print and rip. Oops, there you go. Well, there is definitely monster potential in here, which is also why I was a little eager to see what was inside. There you go, Joe. And this is a fairly quick break. So, I'll grab another trash line and load that up and we can do that. Good luck, Michael. Good luck, Danny. Auto, it's gonna be hiding right there. Here are, oh, I've reset my computer for not to reset the camera settings here. Let's configure the video, set that right about there. Justin Crawford, blah, blah, blah, blah. JC Young, if you wanna grab a classic tub too, that'd be great. And then there is Ambioris Taveris for the Braves. That's gonna go to the NL East, Danny, one for one. The acetate there and behind the Tristan Casa 75 out of 99 is a Ricardo Cabrero, nice, 101 out of 150. That's gonna be for the red legs. That's the NL Central, Michael with one. Behind Spencer Jones is Samuel Zavala. Nice, Padres, that'll be NL West for Danny, DeCons. And behind Jordan Lawler, which is 35 out of 100, that's pretty cool, is Anthony Gutierrez. AL West for Danny. NL West for Danny. Fifth and final mini box, thanks Danny, thanks Michael. Thanks everyone. It is, there's the other guy. And behind Christopher Morrell, rookie card is a Nelson Rada. Angels Auto, AL West, that is for Danny. So Michael got one for his division, Danny got the rest, not so bad. There you go. There you go. And random division break number nine in the books. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us, everybody. I'll see you tomorrow, bye-bye.


See, someone's notes, left behind. OK, don't know who those notes are. When most people actually first hear my job title, they usually assume that I work with the digitised collections at the Turnbull Library when I actually couldn't be further from the truth. I'm many a surprise to learn actually that I work in arrangement and description of unpublished collections and that I specialise in one digital materials. That the Turnbull Library is actively collecting, describing, preserving and providing access to born digital materials makes us pioneers. Very few collecting institutions worldwide can actually make this claim. Furthermore, they're usually even more surprised when they learn how long we've been involved in this activity. Like any frontier pioneer, we've had to learn by trial and error. Consequently, we've had to make some changes to our procedures and improve our practices. However, there's still some major challenges we have yet to resolve, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Like any good archivist, you need some context. So, the Alexander Turnbull Library is a library within the library. According to National Library Act, and I'm just quoting here, the purpose of the Turnbull Library is to preserve, protect, develop and make accessible for all the people of New Zealand the collection of that library in perpetuity and in a manner consistent with their status as documentary heritage and taonga. And I'd just like to emphasise that word in perpetuity. It makes it quite hard when you're talking about born digital collections. Within the library, there's several well-large and well-respected unpublished collections which are listed up there, which are managed by curators. Processing unpublished collections involves arrangement description on what many of us call A&D. UNESCO defines this as the process of putting archives and records into order in accordance with the accepted archival principles of governance and original order. Respect the fons. This is the guiding principle of archival theory, and I hope many of you know what I'm talking about here. Providence. This is where collections are described by the organisation or the individual that has created them. And original order is the order in which the collection was fashioned by their creator, and this is retained in the description. All our unpublished finding aids are made accessible via Ta Pui, our unpublished collection management system. And this is something I kind of have to emphasise quite a bit. So, all unpublished collections within the Turnba Library actually do contain component of born digital materials. A lot of people are actually quite surprised by that fact. But what is born digital? It is digital objects that originate in digital form. This differs quite a lot from, of course, analog materials which have been digitised or reformatted for preservation, like my colleague before me talked about. And I just like to emphasise actually this digitised image on the side here was actually taken the year I was born. And it's a man at ANZ Bank working on a computer. And of course, banks were one of the first adopters, early adopters of computers. It's 1978, by the way, giving away my age. Born digital materials actually commonly come in to us in a number of carriers, as ones actually seen here actually all within our collections. Some people probably forget those old rails. We do have those in the collections as well. And many might remember when the first zip disk first came out on the market. Pretty amazing stuff. 150 megabytes, wow. Oh, wonderful. We've even received entire computers to us, been donated to us. Sorry, Morris G's old Macintosh SE computer that's stored in our Curio's collection alongside Catherine Mansfield's typewriter. So it gives a great complement to the collections. But we also receive born digital materials via email and on cloud-based storage servers, like Dropbox as one. Born digital by its very natures fragile. They all depended on hardware and software, which is under constant threat of obsolescence. According to the conditions of the library, which I mentioned, this makes it really difficult for us to consider. Especially when you think the very first donation of any born digital objects into the collection was actually made in 1983. We commonly, from that point of time, we actually used to print out the files onto paper, put them in a folder and describe them as physical entities. This actually changed in 2000, sorry, and we started describing them as physical entities in themselves. This work was done by library staff throughout all the curatorial sections, but it quickly became evident to them that they couldn't sustain it. There was just so much coming in that they couldn't keep up with the work. So in 2007, my point when was made. There was a number of things that were evident at that time. Born digital in particular was not given priority, mainly for a number of reasons, but primarily staff resources, but also because born digital really doesn't have a physical, obvious, tangible backlog. Just goes on a server and stays there. It's invisible. They don't need to worry about it because it's not piling up around their desk. It's true. This meant the first part of my job was really to work on what was, by then, a quite considerable backlog in some of the collections. And in 2008, our wonderful digital preservation system was launched, Rosetta. Now I just want to move on to three case studies which really illuminate the changes and challenges in improving practices that we've done regarding collecting and managing our born digital materials. Many might recognise this wonderful man. Michael King is probably, well, in still many ways, one of New Zealand's most favourite and beloved, beloved, should I say, historians. We received his papers throughout his life, but we didn't receive his born digital materials until his, from his estate, which was in 2008. So quite a bit after he passed away. So much of the digital material was received nearly 20 years after its creation. And priorities meant that actually the files were not arranged and described until 2010, several years after the initial accession. And I've always actually argued, in many cases, arranging and describing a born digital collection takes a lot longer than an analogue traditional collection. You can't spread out a messy collection of digital files on a workbench and see just by glancing at them that they belong to each other and put them in piles. One thing that was really evident with this collection too was the fact that the analogue description had gone through the whole process and they'd created 32 separate series. And if you're not too short series, it means it really goes back to the whole idea of original order. It was putting them in groupings that was created by Michael King himself. And I want to emphasise, I would never create a series called Digital Files, or ones based on their file formats like word processing documents or Excel spreadsheets. Please try to avoid that. I've tried to fix mistakes like that in the past. It's not pleasant. And of course, I couldn't go back to the donor. I couldn't ask about the hardware or software in which the files were created or the nature of his work practice. For instance, it was really quite obvious. Well, I was pretty certain, about 90% certain, he composed his emails and word processing files and then pasted them into emails and sent them. But vice versa, I couldn't really tell, but that was one thing that was really evident. I'll just put it anyway. The collection actually contained 83 disks, both a Mac and PC. And you can see there's a zip disk and a couple of zip disks in there and also double density disks. This meant actually reading the disks was quite difficult. Required, I think, three different computers. Joe knows a lot about this. And the copying the files was difficult. And of course, another thing that was really difficult with this collection was the disk to actually discover doing the process of ranging and describing that 2008 accession. And they usually were found on the bottom of the dusty boxes or into file within folders. But unfortunately, the person doing the description of the time didn't document where the disks were located. So that meant it really hard for me trying to reorganise them back into that series structure that was created. I knew that they belonged there somewhere, but it was quite hard. Also, there was no clear folder structure except for the disks in which the files were saved to. Of course, if you think of the size of those disks, there was no way that one of his books couldn't... They couldn't be fit under... About three or four disks probably for one draft of his books, for instance. Like, you just couldn't tell whether or not those disks even belonged together as well because you could tell there were chapters one to nine and then 10 to 13 on one disk. But because they hadn't said that they were found together, I couldn't verify that they actually were the same draft of the... They created the same... Anyway. Yeah. And the file names were not always helpful on identifying the content. That was one that's, I think, a really big lesson with this. Just because it says it's something doesn't really mean the contents are exactly what they might say they... Well, appear to be. Yeah. And also, the duplicate file names don't actually guarantee that they're duplicates. You know, file naming conventions of a particular creator, they might just reuse that same kind of file name constantly. And with this collection, there was, from the original 939 files, there ended up being 144 files, which isn't actually quite a... There's some bigger culls that we've had in our collections, which you'll see later. And also, the fragility of these files were compounded by the delays. I guess the discovery, the disks, their technical appraisal, their arrangement and description has meant that only in this last year, the very last of his files have been preserved and made accessible. Thanks to Jay. Over there.  That's the online channel, if you're not too familiar with it, but you can sort of see this collection description, series down the side. But, yeah, I'll just sort of get... And then moving on. Damon Farrell, his freelance photographer working in... He was based in Greymouth, but he provided an incredibly unique perspective on the West Coast way of life. He took photographs of sports teams, events of opening of the McDonald's, for instance, the Tatoo and Wearable Arts Festivals, and also privately commissioned photograph work. We purchased this collection in 2008, and it is still to this day the largest born-digital photograph collection we have. His files were downloaded from his computer, and they were handed over to Turnbull Library staff. This was the first collection, believe it or not, in which the born-digital component of the collection was given priority over the analogue collection. It was a really well-organised collection as a result, though. There were very well-organised into folders as any commercial photographer will tell you. They're pretty well-organised anyway. If the customer comes back to them and wants reprints. And the more... I guess one thing also, particularly because he was a photographer, is that the vast majority of these file names were nonsensical. They were generated by his digital camera, of course. But the one thing that's really interesting about born-digital photographs as well, in particular, is that they have a huge amount of significant properties in their metadata, such as captions, copyright information, keywords, the model maker, the camera in which the photograph was captured on, and even geotagging. And this is really, really important and actually greatly assessed with arranging and describing. However, I'd like to point out, of course, as you can see, there's still a very significant-sized chunk of analogue collection that still has yet to be processed. So, it just shows you the impact. We've put the emphasis on the born-digital, and, unfortunately, it has meant that the analogue has yet to be arranged and described. So, we haven't got it perfect. And that's just a little snapshot. And you can see some of his photographs. There's a lot there. There's a large collection of some fantastic shots in there, if you're getting any inkling from that wonderful belly dancing shot. Then moving on to Keith Locke. Keith was a long-standing Green Party politician and a son of a well-known activist, which many of you might know, Elsie Locke. We made several visits to him in his offices prior to his retirement in Parliament in 2011. And when we discussed the arrangement of his born-digital files, he was really keenly aware that there were really fragile and needed a lot of work on them. But this actually really helped us in the long run. And on the last day in office, his very last day, we went into his Parliamentary office and downloaded directly from his parliamentary computer, noting the hardware, software and so forth. And of course, one thing that was really evident with this collection was that the arrangement and description of both the analogue and the born-digital, they were described concurrently in a series structure was created using both of those. And I should actually mention that, of course, still, though, the digital specialist was working on the born-digital collection. And I'll talk about it a bit later. And the digital files were actually very well organised into clear folder structures, and there were very few technical issues with the files. However, there is a common practice within Turnbull Library, and it's maybe for other collections, where we tend to transfer collections based on format. And one thing, I'll just scroll through too. It's probably too blurry out there, but there is one, there was a large, there's several transfers, one to the ephemera collection and one to the photograph archive. The photograph archive was actually a quite extensive collection, and it actually contains 6.42 gigs of photographs, and that is yet to be arranged and described as well. So even though we described the manuscript-born digital side, there's still, yeah, still got a lot of work to do. And that's sort of got some parting thoughts really around these and these mainly questions and not many answers, but the vast majority of the born-digital materials that we receive usually comes in part of a hybrid collection, which includes traditional analogue materials, and I don't see this changing for a very long time. And it's important to note that the digital and analogue collections are created and used in conjunction with each other, and they shouldn't be in isolation from each other. For instance, just thinking back to Michael King, and with many literary collections, they will usually create a draft on their computer, print it out, do annotations, then create a new draft on their computer, and then so forth and so forth and so forth. And I don't really see, I do my daily job. I can see it. I'm not going to change my practices for a wee while, I don't think. Anyway, and furthermore, of course, as I mentioned before, the arrangement and description of born-digital is still being done by digital specialists when it's becoming more prevalent throughout the collections. Staff are being trained to gain more confidence, but this is taking a wee while. And in many cases, it's a very steep learning curve for many. And the size of collections. The size of the collections we're receiving are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. For instance, a recent donation we received contains 94,000 files. That's 194 gigs. This has a huge impact on our resources. And the tools that we use to assist with these are just not sustainable in the long term. Do we need more specialist and powerful tools? Yeah, that would be great. But is this the only solution? Do we need to collect less or more intelligently? Personal digital archiving is becoming very popular, particularly with CloudBlaze storage systems. And also the digital afterlife is becoming a big concern overseas. I mean, should our role really be about advocacy and education? It's just a question. And curatorial management. Curators really need to consider and weigh up the cost of digital preservation when appraising collections in the first instance. In the past, they used to say, yes, we want it, but they're really having to look in a file-by-file basis at some of these born-digital collections and having to reassess some of their collection policies. And I mean, the King Collection in particular is a very good case in point. It was likely we would have never gone to the links that we did to ensure that files were accessible if it was a less prominent or well-known or beloved writer. And I think it's a myth to think that born digital, just because it's digital, that everything's automated, we still handle many of these files on a file-by-file basis. And also, the curatorial management areas are getting blurred with born digital. You can no longer distinguish a collection by format anymore. It's clearly as you could in the past with analogue. Physical storage items impacted their intellectual control as issuable items. But with digital, this is no longer relevant or necessary. In fact, you want to retain a collection together for contextual purposes, dividing up and transferring it to other curatorial areas based on format just makes no sense anymore. And in 2011, actually, the Turnbull Library went under a really large restructure looking at this and we moved away from an organisation based on format to really function on what's called the matrix model. And this actually set up the arrangement description team. I should emphasise, before this time, Turnbull Library had very much silos based on curatorial sections. And what was unique about my position, I was allowed to go into each of those areas before they were all jailed into one big happy family, so to speak. But during that time period, a lot of arrangement description practices was happening in isolation from each other. A lot of people don't realise it, but there was a lot of disparity in some of the arrangement description regarding some of this stuff, and that's coming to a head. In particular, with our... I guess with the digital materials are really pushing, in one respect, the collection management systems that we have. They're really traditionally based on analogue physical archival collections. And in particular our beloved Tapui system is an age bespoke product which was developed before the adoption of international archival descriptors standards, and it's actually coming to an end of its life, really. And we're hoping to have a replacement system that is compliant with these standards so that our metadata is more easily shared with the world. Another thing, of course, is the digital era has really revolutionised the way that information is created and used. Bond digital files are easily created, copied, exchanged, conserved and deleted. This means the application of the archival principle of respect to fonts is not as easy as it was to apply. I mean, you look at, like, folders were based on how many physical files you could fit, wedge into it. Now you get digital folders on a computer that contain thousands of files. And who do you know who actually created the files in some respects when, especially in Microsoft, the beauty of Microsoft, as soon as you open a file, you might not even change it and close it. It changes the metadata and behind it and says that you are the last person and so forth. And another thing, of course, with the discoverability and the access to our collections, we acknowledge that the access and delivery is not ideal for our Bond digital. But the researchers, in honesty, are not fully engaging with these parts of our collections yet, so we really don't know what future expectations will be. I can think of a few, but there could be more. I mean, would they want a keyword search or the Bond digital content and surface only the relevant files? That would be great. Whereas the entire output of a creator, I mean, we got Judith Binney's computer, for instance, and seeing her entire files and seeing how she interacted with them, that would be wonderful. But also, digital archaeology is becoming a really big growing area of research, excavating the chips, as they call it, and understanding the obsolete technologies, which Jay knows all about. But I just want to say there's really no silver billet to any of this, and that's actually what makes it so exciting and rewarding and why I've been working with Rolf for so long. And... Yeah, any questions? Yeah. With the material that had been deleted, I'm thinking about Stafford, who had the... Sorry, Stafford had the Robert Creely archive and his hard drive, and they were coming from that email that he deleted and also putography that was in his browser cache. So, they had decided that we had to curate that material? Yeah, I mean, we get that quite a lot as well, particularly because, as you probably might not be aware, but a huge amount of our actually writers and creatives actually prefer to use Mac. And we work in a PC environment at work, and you actually get to see a lot of stuff that you get the shadow files and all sorts of things. But also, we see the bins, of course, and when you're looking at those disks, but that really comes down to a curatorial decision. And also, I guess, if they put it in the bin, they had a... They don't want it to come to us in some respects. It comes down to a question. We do bring that up every now and then. And then Michael King actually did retrieve quite a lot from his bin, particularly when there were partial drafts and things like that. But yeah, for some of the things that comes down, you just have a discussion with the curator, because I mean, I've just been given the collection to work on. Discover some things that perhaps we're never intended to be seen by people. Yeah, there's... There is some... Some... There is a lot of questions around. I think it's a case-by-case basis, really, when it comes down to it, though. So there's no set policy on... No, not really. ...safe it and then make a decision on it? We do save it, and then we make decisions, yes. But I should even say so. We do retrieve everything we can at the time, and then we make a decision what we have in front of us. Usually it comes down to that collection policy and the curator's decision around retaining particular files. Yeah, but anyway. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So are you going to do anything about the interface with the NVHA? We would love to... Oh, we've got a wish list. You can talk to that, Jay. So... We've got a wish list. It's been growing. When you say that, what do you mean? What part of the interface do you want my role? The public interface, for Browns, for getting access to the... Plenty of image viewer and... Sure. ...in the interface and... Absolutely. And I think everybody who works in the premises would say that it's not perfect, it's not beautiful, and we deserve, we want better things. And there are a few kinds of ideas of the work on behind the scenes that we want to push out. Well, obviously, these things take time. And I think fundamentally, I think what we need to hear, we need to be told the library, so maybe just email Bill and say, hey, I want some better tools, because I don't think you're doing a time... I don't even explain it in the way that I think is as best for that collection. So please say those things and say them out, please. So we can get the mandate to do something about it. So you need to leverage your relationship with its leaders because, after all, you didn't build the product with them? Yeah. So I think what we need to do in conversation spaces is not appropriate for a classic story, but my response would be, Rosensu is one product, it's a presentation mechanism, it's not an access mechanism. And that's the thing, yeah. That's the thing that preserva... Yeah, we've been concerned with the preservation, but now we are getting really into the... providing access and really mining that some of that stuff in behind some of the data that we've got, yeah, like some of those digital photographs that have a lot of background metadata to them. But, yeah. What? Ah, yeah. Yeah. It's so easy now for everyone to say everything. Oh, absolutely. I'm just thinking. Yeah. How do you place some kind of files or photos you eventually are going to come in space? Yeah. So you certainly don't run out of space on how you're going to space? No, that's true. This is the problem. I mean, that's what we're discovering. Preserving, yeah. What if you talk about advice role to the public and share it for it comes to you? Yeah, I mean, there's some... over in the States, I know the Library of Congress, they run some really interesting workshops with people, with concerns about how to manage their own collections. And I think that's a way that we can... not saying that we definitely want all your stuff to come to us, but just educating people how they can better manage their own collections, because in some cases it is just out of hand just thinking that, like, the last collection I mentioned. But there's some really interesting collections, though, sorry, and I'm probably talking too loudly into that. Another collection I worked on a wee while ago, which I didn't use as a case point, was Maura Shabbot, and if most people don't know, he suffered from Alzheimer's. And so he relied heavily on his computer in the later part of his life and expressed quite passionately his... His despair, I guess, in losing his words. And I think as a writer, isn't that the most thing you prize most? And he talked about that quite a bit. But also the actual shared disorganisation of his files actually just sort of reflected his disorganised mind. And I think some of that kind of stuff is really interesting as well. I mean, you want to retain, like, he had all these things all over the place, but I kind of questioned, just because there were drip kits everywhere, that actually sort of blishtated how scattered his memory was, and, you know, but anyway, that's... And that's a case-by-case basis, but, yeah, yeah, anyway. So, tidying him up for that big case list? Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And that's where context comes back again. Yeah.