Free access to law movement

One of the exciting world wide movements promoting free access to law is spearheaded from Australia. The Australasian Legal Information Institute hosts http://www.austlii.edu.au/ This website allows free access to most of the Australian legal resources, including legislation and decisions of the High Court of Australia [the Highest court in Australia]. They have devised standard notation for citing case law that is uniformly followed throughout Australia, with most of the Courts sending in the judgments and transcripts of proceedings to austlii.edu.au in standard formats. Legislation is reported to the site by the attorneys who represent the state.

Austlii success also led initiatives in England creating www.bailii.org Worldlii site provides access to legal information in other jurisdictions. Legal information institutes of the world, meeting in Montreal, in October 2002 declared that:

* Public legal information from all countries and international institutions is part of the common heritage of humanity. Maximising access to this information promotes justice and the rule of law;
* Public legal information is digital common property and should be accessible to all on a non-profit basis and free of charge;
* Independent non-profit organisations have the right to publish public legal information and the government bodies that create or control that information should provide access to it so that it can be published.

Involvement of professors of law, attorneys, judges and a host of sponsors from the business and legal community make the initiative possible. Some accounts giving details of the work done by various volunteers and enthusiasts are available. A few snips from interesting speeches and material published online:

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers) in his Valedictory Address for Lord Justice Brooke [2006] EWCA Civ B1 (27 July 2006) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/B1.html said:

On the Bench Henry worked tirelessly with the Lord Chancellor's Department (latterly the Department of Constitutional Affairs) on schemes for the introduction of IT into the court system -- schemes that alas all too often have fallen at the fence of implementation through lack of funds. Legal Technology News accurately stated that Lord Justice Brooke was "one of the most computer literate judges on the bench of any court on either side of the Atlantic today" with the advantage of being a realist "rather than a techno-enthusiast forever jumping on to every new gizmo band wagon that rolls along".

I would need the assistance of a computer to keep track of the various IT committees on which Henry Brooke has served during the nineteen years that he has been striving to bring the court's IT into first the 20th and latterly the 21st century -- although it might be more truthful to say that the efforts are still to bring the standards up to those of the last century. He was the first judge to be a full member of a Court Service Board, and, in 2001, because of his unparalleled experience, he was appointed by Lord Woolf as Judge in charge of Modernisation (JIM for short). He has described his experience in this area as "snakes and ladders". The promise of £1.1 billion for IT for criminal courts -- up a ladder. The promise of £260 million for IT in the civil courts -- a further ladder. Superb team work between civil servants and judges -- and in this context Mr Justice Cresswell deserves special mention -- in preparing the programmes for modernisation -- up a long ladder -- and then, wham, down a huge snake, the withdrawal of the majority of the funding.

Despite this, there have been some advances -- the computerised claims production centre at Northampton, Money Claims Online, Possession Claims Online, the LINK system, XHIBIT (although not all agree that this deserved the priority it received), and the provision of lap-tops and IT facilities for judges. So the industry of Henry and those who have worked with him at the IT coalface has borne some fruit.

Allied to his enthusiasm for IT has been his determination that the public should have free access to judgments as soon as they have been approved by the court. In 1999 he chaired a meeting in London which led to the formation of the multi-disciplinary "Free the Law" movement and to his taking the Chair of BAILII (the British and Irish Legal Information Institute) which has achieved so much in this area.

These activities would be more than enough to provide a full workload for most people, but Henry has done them in his spare time. His mainstream activities included chairing the Law Commission in the three years 1993, 1994 and 1995. This important post requires the highest intellectual ability and knowledge of the law, coupled with leadership and administrative skills. You can see why Mr Justice Brooke was selected for the job. It has also traditionally earned the holder swift promotion to the Court of Appeal on relinquishing the chair. Thus, in 1996, though not quite as swiftly as he deserved, Henry was promoted to the Court of Appeal.

The contribution that he has made to jurisprudence in that court, particularly since he has been presiding, has been immense, reflecting his learning in the law and powers of analysis...

The legal fraternity even today takes pride in the trappings of office: majestic buildings, robes, flowery language, etc. It is hilarious to read this part of the above speech!

It takes a little time to get to know Henry Brooke. His clerk, Elizabeth, sent me a note which says: "He wears his robes like a catwalk model -- off the shoulder". He has a slightly craggy exterior and an unruly and unruled head of hair (which is one of the more cogent arguments for wigs in the Court of Appeal), and which can even lead to an impression of slight disorganisation.

If so, the impression is totally misleading. No one, who does not have a rigid self-discipline, could achieve even half of the contribution that Henry Brooke makes, and from his earliest days in the law has made, to so many different aspects of the administration of justice in this country. When you come to know him, you also become aware of his sense of values, his humanity and his care for his fellow men and women.

One may only humbly agree with the Chief Justice that the contributions by Sir Henry Brooke have added greater glory to the institution more than any of the other trappings. The effort to use technology in meaningful ways is never easy, as Mr Stephen Hockman, QC, observed in the farewell to Lord Justice Brooke:

At the same time, as I suspect most people will be aware, Henry Brooke was making increasing use of technology in the cases which he tried. His practice was to engage in proactive case-management through the use of e-mail. Many a Member of the Bar, and perhaps even of the Judiciary, who has received an e-mail from Henry timed at some unearthly hour, perhaps even well after midnight, with the self-effacing but inaccurate explanation later proffered that it was probably due to an error in the time clock on the computer. Such stories, I venture to say, illustrate both his dedication and his essential modesty.

Laurie J West-Knights QC, co-founded www.bailii.org along with Lord Saville and Sir Henry Brooke. It was originally maintained by LJW-K QC, personally, at http://www.lawonline.cc/ The story of the initiative used to be available there, but not any longer. One gets to read about LJW-K, QC, at http://www.hailshamchambers.com/barristers/laurie-west-knights-qc.asp The point to be noted is that it takes only a few spirited individuals to bring about spectacular changes.

In India, NIC has taken several initiatives, and a wealth of information relating to legislation and case-law are freely available. But, there are no standard notations that enable citing case-law published at the NIC servers before courts. Again, many proprietary software tools are used in India, in sharp contrast to austlii that uses its own in-house software to index information. (The technical details about tools used by austlii are available here)

Porting law to computers as code executable by machines would be the next logical step. India has a rich tradition in not only computing and mathematics, but satya and dharma (truth and rule of law) as well. We should take a lot more initiative to make the porting possible within a decade from now.

References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldLII
[2] Graham Greenleaf (University of New South Wales - Faculty of Law), Philip Chung (University of Technology, Sydney - Faculty of Law) and Andrew Mowbray (University of Technology, Sydney - Faculty of Law), Emerging Global Networks for Free Access to Law: World LII's Strategies, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975614
(2007)

SSRN: Social Science Research Network

SSRN [Social Science Research Network] at http://www.ssrn.com makes a number of papers published in U.S. journals available for download. This veritable online resource for legal and social research requires a login to view abstracts and download papers, but registration is free. I wonder when India would have a comparable service for articles published in Indian journals. A few sample abstracts from SSRN:

[1] Jason Mazzone (Brooklyn Law School), Copyfraud, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244

Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use.

Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech.

Congress should amend the Copyright Act to allow private parties to bring civil causes of action for false copyright claims. Courts should extend the availability of the copyright misuse defense to prevent copyright owners from enforcing an otherwise valid copyright if they have engaged in past copyfraud. In addition, Congress should further protect the public domain by creating a national registry listing public domain works and a symbol to designate those works. Failing a congressional response, there may exist remedies under state law and through the efforts of private parties to achieve these ends.

[2] Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard Law School), The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431080

Bush v. Gore presented a question that most likely never should have been decided by a federal court. Properly applied, justiciability is inextricably linked both with the institutional context in which judicial intervention is sought (including the remedial character such intervention would have to take) and with the substantive constitutional principles that undergird the allegedly "political" question at issue. Unless it is demonstrable that the political and administrative process itself is so structured that the political branches cannot be trusted to abide by constitutional norms preventing an impermissible form of exclusion or dilution of an identifiable individual's or group's rights of political participation without adequate opportunity for timely correction within the process itself, the case for judicial intervention that pretermits the political process is extremely weak.

There is thus a strong connection between the veritable culture shock set off by the Supreme Court's intervention in the presidential election of 2000 and the proper characterization of the Court's action as a violation of the implicit "political process" doctrine that has governed our national life without much interruption from the outset. The structure of the Florida Supreme Court's recount order of December 8, including the role it assigned to the state court judge in addressing alleged inequalities, left open numerous avenues for correcting procedural inequities in ballot counting. And the alleged inequities were so complicated and so attenuated that to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court had before it a completed constitutional harm notwithstanding what the Florida courts and legislature, followed by Congress, might have done, seems bizarre.

[3] Tim Oreilly (O'Reilly Media), What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, Communications & Strategies, No. 1, p. 17, First Quarter 2007, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008839 (2007)

This paper was the first initiative to try to define Web 2.0 and understand its implications for the next generation of software, looking at both design patterns and business modes. Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an architecture of participation, and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.

[4]Amir Khandani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Andrew W. Lo, MIT Sloan School of Management; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), What Happened to the Quants in August 2007?, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1015987
(2007)
During the week of August 6, 2007, a number of quantitative long/short equity hedge funds experienced unprecedented losses. Based on TASS hedge-fund data and simulations of a specific long/short equity strategy, we hypothesize that the losses were initiated by the rapid unwind of one or more sizable quantitative equity market-neutral portfolios. Given the speed and price impact with which this occurred, it was likely the result of a forced liquidation by a multi-strategy fund or proprietary-trading desk, possibly due to a margin call or a risk reduction. These initial losses then put pressure on a broader set of long/short and long-only equity portfolios, causing further losses by triggering stop/loss and de-leveraging policies. A significant rebound of these strategies occurred on August 10th, which is also consistent with the unwind hypothesis. This dislocation was apparently caused by forces outside the long/short equity sector - in a completely unrelated set of markets and instruments - suggesting that systemic risk in the hedge-fund industry may have increased in recent years.

[5]Allen Rostron and Nancy Levit (University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC) - School of Law), Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews & Journals, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019029
(2008)

This document contains information about submitting articles to law reviews and journals, including the methods for submitting an article, any special formatting requirements, how to contact them to request an expedited review, and how to contact them to withdraw an article from consideration. It covers about 188 law reviews. The document was fully updated on June 8, 2008 and was revised on March 5, 2009.

TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs

International law has grown stronger over the past two decades. Treaties have shaped municipal laws more firmly, and local governments are being held responsible and accountable before the larger comity of nations. The tightening grip of international law is best illustrated by legislation for computer programs.

The TRIPS Treaty, 1994, paved way for uniform copyright, patents and trademark practices round the globe. Article 10, provided copyrights for "Computer Programs and Compilations of Data", as follows:

1. Computer programs, whether in source or object code, 
shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).

2. Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable 
or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their 
contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. 
Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, 
shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or 
material itself.

By Act 38 of 1994, India amended the Copyright Act, 1957, to give effect to obligations under the TRIPS Treaty. The Patents Act, 1970, was also amended by Act 28 of 2002, excluding mathematical or business methods, computer programs per se or algorithms from the definition of inventions.

The Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 (No. 7 of 2004) promulgated on 26.12.2004, amended the Patents Act, 1970, modifying the provisions with regard to computer programs as follows:

   "3. In section 3 of the  principal Act, (a) in clause (d), for the
   words new use  , the words mere new use  shall be substituted; (b)
   for  clause  (k),  the  following clauses  shall  be  substituted,
   namely:

   (k)  a  computer  programme   per  se  other  than  its  technical
   application to industry or a combination with hardware;

   (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;"

This was opposed to the scheme laid by the TRIPS Treaty, and naturally provoked the developer community. Several representations were made to the Government of India and ultimately the amendment was dropped. Snips from my posts and events organised then, are attached below:

---

[1] Representation to the Government of India:

We are very concerned about the recent amendments made to the
Patents Act, 1970, by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004,
amending the provisions with regard to computer programs as follows:

"3. In section 3 of the principal Act, (a) in clause (d), for the
words new use , the words mere new use shall be substituted; (b)
for clause (k), the following clauses shall be substituted,
namely:

(k) a computer programme per se other than its technical
application to industry or a combination with hardware;

(ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;"
Allowing patents over any kind of computation seriously harm and
hamper the creativity, productivity and freedom of all, particularly
software developers while writing code. Many organisations, including
the Free Software Foundation have been campaigning against software
patents the world over. We are shocked and surprised that amendments
to the Patents Act, 1970, with regard to computer programs, should
have been introduced so suddenty in India, by a Presidential
Ordinance, without any public debate or prior announcement at all. We
hope this memorandum would restore the status quo as quickly as
possible, for all the following reasons:
1. Amendment is ambigious and capable of easy abuse and
misinterpretation:
Though under the amended clause (k), computer programs per se continue
to be not patentable, the exceptions made thereto are not clear. All
computer programs work in combination with hardware, and all computer
programs have technical application to industry, particularly to the
software industry. A literal interpretation of the amendment with
regard to computer programs is dangerously misleading, creating the
impression as though any computer program is patentable. However, the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry has made a statement to the
following effect at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=6074

"In IT, the trend is to have software in combination with or
embedded in hardware such as in computers or cell phones or a
variety of other gadgets. Software as such has no patent
protection (the protection available is by way of copyright); but
the changing technological environment has made it necessary to
provide for patents when software has technical applications in
industry in combination with hardware. This has been a demand of
NASSCOM."

There are significant differences between the statement made by the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry and what the ordinance actually
says, and the intentions are not apparent from the wordings used in
the amendment. However, even assuming that the provisions of the
Patents Act have been amended to enable and make provision for only
embedded software, which is a very vague term, it would make in roads
into the freedoms and liberties required by software developers to
peacefully continue with their work and services. Any special
provisions providing for patentability of computing or computer
programs under the category "embedded software" is needless, and bad
because:

(a) The classification of computer programs into embedded software
and others is very superficial. The key advantage in using
computer programs is that logic can be re-written without
re-wiring or physically modifying hardware. Invariably, it is
easy to re-write, copy, improve, and modify computer programs,
and it is quite possible to extend the life and productivity
of hardware devices that are manufactured using scarce
non-renewable resources, merely by modifying the computer
program. People can, and often do, install new software on
embedded computers particularly when the source code is
available or to improve usability of hardware.
(b) The classification is arbitrary and opposed to principles of
equality, and the very objects of the Patents Act. Let us take
an illustration, for example a computer program named `foo'.
It is clear that foo is not patentable per se, under the
amended clause (k). But then, foo, in its technical
application to industry is made patentable. The
classification, based on mere usage, making foo an invention
only in "its technical application to industry", has no
rational nexus to the object of the Patents Act, and plainly
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. One of
the avowed objects of the Patents Act is "to ensure more
effectively that patent rights are not worked to the detriment
of the consumer or to the prejudice of trade or the industrial
development of the country". Introducing patents for any kind
of computer programs is detrimental and opposed to the objects
of the Act. The question how software patents are detrimental
and harmful is elaborately analysed and discussed at
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html

2. Amendment is opposed to Article 39(c) of the Constitution of India:

The Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, under
Chapter IV. Article 39 reads as follows:

"39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.-
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing-
(a) that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to
an adequate means of livelihood;

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources
of the community are so distributed as best to subserve
the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result
in the concentration of wealth and means of production to
the common detriment;"

The software industry largely earns revenue by providing custom
services, and by introducing patents for embedded software, the
software service providers would be hampered by needless claims,
litigation and other un-productive disputes that cannot be easily
resolved. Patents for embedded software would lead to increasing
concentration of wealth and means of production to common detriment.
It is well known that Bill Gates of Microsoft is the richest man in
the world, and the patent regmime would only go to promote the riches
of the richest. We have no hesitation in saying that the needless
hair splitting of computer programs into embedded/non-embedded will
only entangle the Indian Software Industry in litigation, obstructing
progress to common detriment.

Other harmful consequences of the amendment:

The amendment would disturb the peace prevailing in the software
field, and may raise contentious disputes between various hardware
manufacturers, software developers and entities, resulting in loss of
peace in the first place, coupled with loss of revenue and other
damages. It would undermine the peace of mind required by software
developers to write robust code, robbing and sapping energy away to
indulge in meaningless patent searches and other needless exercises,
that are totally not suitable for the software industry. The amendment
would only increase the cost of developing software, and take away all
the advantages that India has enjoyed so far in the embedded software
field.

Conclusion:

Rabindranath Tagore, in his Gitanjali, wrote:

"`Prisoner, tell me, who was it that wrought this unbreakable
chain?'

`It was I,' said the prisoner, `who forged this chain very
carefully. I thought my invisible power would hold the world
captive leaving me in a freedom undisturbed. Thus night and day I
worked at the chain with huge fires and cruel hard strokes. When
at last the work was done and the links were complete and
unbreakable, I found that it held me in its grip."
It is trite to observe that the amendments imposed will without doubt
chain and cripple the software industry in India, pushing the industry
into the dark dungeons of doubt, confusion and chaos. It is very
strange that NASSCOM should have invited the amendment, without taking
into consideration the serious harm and danger patents for embedded
software pose. We strongly urge the Government of India to
immediately change its sudden reversal in policy, and withdraw the
above Ordinance, as soon as possible, reverting to the more mature,
and time tested policies and patent law in force before January 1,
2005, removing the hurdles on the way for the smooth continuance of
our growth, progress and prosperity.

Therefore,
   We  request  the  Government  of  India  to  immediately  withdraw
   THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE,  2004 (Ordinance .No 7 of 2004)
   under Article 123(2)(b), with regard to amendments made to Section
   3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.

[2] Workshop on "TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs" at the University of Madras, to educate the developer community on legal issues:


About the Department of Legal Studies:

The Department of Legal Studies, University of Madras, was founded by Prof. Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, in 1952. Dr. N. Balu, a leading expert on International Law, particularly the Law of Seas, and Constitutional Law, now Heads the Department. The Department also has a Chair in Intellectual Property Rights, established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

The Department leads the country in organising the National Rounds of the Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition on International Law, and is an active centre for debates touching upon International Law and Constitutional Law. The Department awards the Master of Law degree to candidates who complete its cources on International Law and Constitutional Law. It also conducts courses on Law relating to Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks.

About the Workshop:

The Department of Legal Studies, University of Madras, is organising a workshop on "TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs", that is tentatively scheduled for 8th April, 2005 (Friday). The one day workshop is intended as an "out-reach programme" for software professionals and students specialising in international law.

The legal aspects of Computer Programs are governed by the TRIPS Treaty. Globalisation, governance, and almost every human activity hinges upon Computer Programs and its legal setting. The workshop will discuss the true nature of computer programs, and the character of rights surrounding them. The harm caused by mis-application of patent law to cover computer programs in some member states of the TRIPS Treaty, notably US and Japan, and the possible remedies against such practices, will also be analysed threadbare.

Schedule:

* 9.30 AM - 10.00 AM : Tea and Registration

* 10.00 AM - 10.45 AM : Inauguration 10.45 AM - 1.00 PM : Talks by Experts/Invitees / Tea
o 1.00 PM - 2.00 PM : Lunch 2.00 PM - 3.00 PM : Talks by Faculty/Students

3.00 PM - 3.45 PM : Open House & Discussion / Tea 3.45 PM - 4.30 PM : Valedictory

List of Speakers:

Sivasankar Chander, Chief Architect, Qryptix
* Topic for Talk : Introduction to Computer Programs

M. Murali, Business Practices Division, AU-KBC Research Centre, MIT.
* Topic for Talk : Business and Trading in Computer Programs

K. Ramanraj, M.L., Advocate, High Court, Madras
* Topic for Talk : TRIPS Treaty and Computer Programs


Brief Summary

Sivasankar started the discussion with the difficulties involved in testing "program equivalence", giving two short programs, based on the Goldbach conjecture, calling one as the goldbach (about 7 lines) and the other the ghost_of_goldbach (about 3 lines that always returns true). Testing program equivalence is at the heart of any "software patent" infringement suit, and Shiv proved that it is well impossible to scientifically research and conclude that two given programs are equivalent. There are not even any standard rules for scientifically testing and concluding "program equivalence".

Sivasankar holds a B.Tech. from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, and has done M.E. in Computer Science, at !IISc., Bangalore. He has worked for IBM, USA., and has presented several papers on computer science, and software development. Well, he is a typical expert who may be called to testify in a "software patent" infringement suit, to "prove" that a given computer program infringes upon a given "software patent". It is apparent that no expert can assert on oath that two programs are "equivalent" or that one is a copy of the other, except when the two are exact copies.

Murali discussed the various business models used by software entities to do business.

Ramanraj basically summarised the recent events that has mostly been discussed at in-parl mailing list; and to enliven the proceedings; took the audience through the recent decision pronounced in Eolas v. Microsoft, to explain how the system works in the US, and asked those present to explore and research the steps that could be taken against the illegitimate practice of "software patents" which are a barrier against free trade.

[3] A note on why no patents for mathematical or business methods or computer programs per se or algorithms in India:

Rebentisch  wrote to 
pointing to the following article:

http://www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E_36364
India: Patentability of Softwares in India
30 November 2005
Article by Manisha Singh Nair

,----[Manisha Singh Nair wrote:]
| The Patents Act refers to computer programs in Section 3, which deals
| with inventions that cannot be patented. According to S. 3(k), a
| computer program per se is not patentable. This makes us think about
| what the term ?per se? stands for in this context.
|
| According to the Webster?s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, the
| term ?per se? refers to "by, of, for, or in itself; intrinsically". If
| we are to use this definition we can well assume that the software as
| such cannot be patented. But don?t the same words of the provision
| tell us something more- that if the claimed invention is some thing
| more than?mere? software, it is patentable?
`----

The Patents  Act declares  in Section 3,  among other things,  that "a
mathematical  or business  method  or  a computer  program  per se  or
algorithms;" are not inventions within the meaning of the Act.

Under  Section 7,  every application  for a  patent shall  be  for one
invention only.  It  is fairly obvious that an  invention that relates
to a mathematical  or business method or a  computer program in itself
or algorithms are not patentable in India.

We  only   need  to  investigate  the  situation   when  an  invention
incidentally includes a computer  program or even mathematical methods
as part of a single invention.

The  Copyright  Act defines  "computer  programme"  and "computer"  as
follows:

"computer programme"  means a set of instructions  expressed in words,
codes,  schemes or  in any  other form,  including a  machine readable
medium, capable of causing a  computer to perform a particular task or
achieve a particular result;

"computer"   includes  any   electronic  or   similar   device  having
information processing capabilities.

The "computer"  then refers  to devices having  information processing
capabilities, that may be

[1]  electronic: Without doubt,  laptop computers,  desktop computers,
mainframes and  other electronic devices  with "information processing
capabilities"  fall within  the  meaning of  "computer".  The  general
scheme of a generic computer could be as follows:

+-------+---------------+--------+
|       |               |        |
|Input>==> Information >==>Output|
|       |   Processing  |        |
|       +----^v----^v---+        |
|       |     Storage   |        |
+-------+---------------+--------+
Fig 1: An electronic computer

[2] The definition also  includes "similar devices" within the meaning
of "computer".   That brings within  the purview of the  definition of
"computer",   mechanical  devices   like   abacus,  slide-rules,   the
Analytical Engine of  Charles Babbage and any other  device that could
do information processing.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o o o o o o o o o o o o o |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                           
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| o o o o o o o o o o o o o |
| o o o o o o o o o o o o o |
| o o o o o o o o o o o o o |
| o o o o o o o o o o o o o |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig 2: Abacus - a mechanical computer

Now, consider the following:

    A set of instructions to operate an abacus.
    A novel method to operate an abacus.
    A  set  of  instructions  to  operate an Analytical  Engine.
    Emulators  that  mimic  an  abacus  or Analytical  Engine.
    Programs to operate electronic computers.

In  all  the  above   cases,  the  instructions  are  instructions  in
themselves to  enable computation on  computers and there could  be no
confusion whatsoever that they are  "computer programs per se" and not
inventions withing the meaning of the Patents Act.

It is true that computers are universal machines, and we could express
many  inventions  as  computer programs  in  the  form  of a  list  of
instructions.  Many  manufacturing processes could be  expressed as an
abstract series of steps, that  at first sight, would appear as though
the  invention  could be  fully  implemented  as  a computer  program.
Closer  analysis  will reveal  that  "computer  programs  per se"  are
clearly distinguishable from  other inventions dealing with industrial
processes.

According to Patrick Henry Winston, "Artificial Intelligence" is study
of the  computations that make  it possible to  [1]perceive, [2]reason
and [3]act."  The dictionary meaning of "Intelligence" is "the ability
to gain and  apply knowledge and skills".  Only  those inventions that
exhibit  intelligence  are patentable  as  Section  3(a) excludes  "an
invention  which  is  frivolous  or which  claims  anything  obviously
contrary to well established natural laws".

Intelligence is a natural attribute found exhibited in life forms, and
specifically  required in an  invention, to  be patentable.   ("AI" is
plainly,  artificial "man  made"  intelligence, where  the measure  of
intelligence   is  only   incidental).    Intelligence  exhibited   by
inventions may be analysed as follows:

=================+===============+===============+====================
Intelligence/    |[1]Perception  |[2]Reasoning   |[3]Action
Invention        |(input)        |(logical steps)|(output)
=================+===============+===============+====================
Computer         |input devices  |information    |output devices
                 |               |processing     |
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Abacus           |push beads with|instructions   |read/feel position
                 |fingers        |               |of beads
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Bread Making     |flour,water,   |step by step   |bread
                 |salt,heat      |mnf process    |
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Semifab Unit     |silicon,gold,  |VHDL & process |Microprocessor
                 |topography,etc |               |
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Humans           |ears,nose,eyes,|brain,         |arms,legs,speech,
                 |tongue,skin    |nervous system |getital & excretory
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Robots           |vision,hearing,|software       |move with wheels,
                 |IR,..          |               |speakers, monitor ..
-----------------+---------------+---------------+--------------------
Fig 3: Analysis of Inventions based on Intelligence exhibited

With  a computer,  that by  definition means  only devices  capable of
information processing,  it is neither possible to  input flour, water
or salt nor get bread as output.

The manufacture of bread may involve the following:
    Step 1: Take one measure of flour
    Step 2: Add two measures of water
    Step 3: Mix flour with water and add 1/100th measure of salt & yeast
    Step 4: Bake in oven for 25 minutes at 200 F

The  above  involves "mathematical  methods"  at  each  step, and  the
invention  could  never  be  described  without  use  of  mathematical
methods.   Under Section  10 of  the Patents  Act, the  patent  may be
supplemented with models  and samples which however are  not deemed as
part  of   the  specification.    Every  invention  could   use  other
inventions, mathematics, laws of physics, computer programs, and other
aids to  describe the  invention coherently, but  they would  never be
deemed  as  part  of  the   claim.   If  the  claim  relates  to  just
mathematical  methods or  computer programs  per se,  then  they would
simply be rejected  as not being inventions within  the meaning of the
Act.

It is very clear that  "Software patents" are illegal and unlawful not
authorised by law in India.

Literary  works upon  patents are  one of  the chief  benefits  of the
patent system.  For example, let us take Posilac 1 Step (US patent no:
4,985,404).  This is used to "increase" milk yield of dairy cows.  The
patent  expires on Jan,  15, 2008  and until  then, others  cannot use
Posilac  without  permission  from  the  patentee.   However,  nothing
prevents  physicians  or scientists  from  researching  the patent  to
publish articles or make other  decisions about the effects of Posilac
on cows and humans.   Research scholars could write simulator programs
to explain  the invention or analyse  its effects, without  in any way
infringing upon the patent.

A final  note: The  line between hardware  and software  is vanishing.
Using a  language like VHDL, it  is possible to  describe very complex
hardware as program constructs, and also implement a solution that may
defy  the  distinction  maintained  between "computer"  and  "computer
program".  We  may not be  very far away  from the day  when engineers
come with a machine and say: "you never have to change hardware.  If a
better  design becomes available,  just change  the software,  and the
atoms  will rearrange  themselves, and  presto  you would  have a  new
'hardware'  in place".   In  such a  situation,  the computer  program
itself could  transform the computer,  and this is certainly  the next
logical  step  in electronic  design  automation.   A  large chunk  of
hardware may then stand excluded from patenability, but then, it would
be a case of damnum sine injuria for hardware manufacturers.
__

References:
[1]
http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2005-March/002930.html
[2] http://wiki.ffii.org/Madras050408En
[3] http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2005-December/003740.html
[4]http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm

Mahatma Gandhi's works enter the PUBLIC DOMAIN

On 1st January 2009, the copyright for Mahatma Gandhi's works expired and his works are now in the public domain, all set to enter cyber space. This is very delightful news, but thanks to the sterile and puerile print media posing as India's "national" newspapers, there was no publicity to mark the entry with celebration. Needless publicity is continuously given to a few odd objects the Mahatma used, but never considered them as his "property" - a pair of glasses, the glass case, his slippers and a bowl set! Anyway, the following is a brief list of sites that have already published some of the works and they are absolutely free for all to download, read, use and benefit:

http://www.mkgandhi.org
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_Mahatma_Gandhi
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=713636

Mahatma Gandhi went through a lot in life and documented them carefully. We can measure and see how far things have changed in India because of his messages. The Mahatma reached out to solve every little problem around him, which is as great as the political liberation he fought for.

To give just one example, the Indian Railways have changed a lot today with freedom and is today the largest and one of the best run organisations. A glimpse into the past will amplify the improvements we enjoy and take for granted today:

THIRD CLASS IN INDIAN RAILWAYS

I have now been in India for over two years and a half after my return
from South Africa. Over one quarter of that time I have passed on the
Indian trains travelling third class by choice. I have travelled up
north as far as Lahore, down south up to Tranquebar, and from Karachi to
Calcutta. Having resorted to third class travelling, among other
reasons, for the purpose of studying the conditions under which this
class of passengers travel, I have naturally made as critical
observations as I could. I have fairly covered the majority of railway
systems during this period. Now and then I have entered into
correspondence with the management of the different railways about the
defects that have come under my notice. But I think that the time has
come when I should invite the press and the public to join in a crusade
against a grievance which has too long remained unredressed, though much
of it is capable of redress without great difficulty.

...   ...   ...
...   ...   ...

The compartment itself was evil looking. Dirt was lying thick upon the
wood work and I do not know that it had ever seen soap or water.

The compartment had an exceptional assortment of passengers. There were
three stalwart Punjabi Mahomedans, two refined Tamilians and two
Mahomedan merchants who joined us later. The merchants related the
bribes they had to give to procure comfort. One of the Punjabis had
already travelled three nights and was weary and fatigued. But he could
not stretch himself. He said he had sat the whole day at the Central
Station watching passengers giving bribe to procure their tickets.
Another said he had himself to pay Rs. 5 before he could get his ticket
and his seat. These three men were bound for Ludhiana and had still more
nights of travel in store for them.

Computerisation of operations at Indian Railways have now made ticket issue corruption free. We may book even online through http://www.irctc.co.in/ and browse through http://www.indianrail.gov.in/ to get information about the rails running. Of course, cleanliness has remarkably improved today, but there is room for more tidiness.

Running operations with computer aid could bring in remarkable transparency, speed and efficiency. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest inspirations for all times. One of his visions was as follows:

The government we dream of, I describe as Ramarajya.  
Swaraj alone can be such Ramarajya.

How may we establish it?

In former times, the subjects did tapascharya when they 
were oppressed.  They believed that it was because of their 
sins that they got a wicked king and so they tried to purify
themselves.  The first step in this was to recognize a monster 
as such and avoid him, to non-cooperate with him.  Even 
non-cooperation requires courage.  To cultivate it, one needs
to give up comforts and pleasures.

He asked lawyers to give up practice and avoid working with the government then, whose "activities have done nothing but harm to India." Strangely, six decades after swaraj as the Mahatma dreamed of, a huge number of lawyers in the Madras High Court, have had to return vakalats and briefs to their clients and only few steps away from giving up practice as well. Their skulls were broken by a brutal police. Is this the Ramarajya he dreamed of?

What could be the penance of today?

Read code: 
    Read any and every piece of legislation that we use in our daily life.

Rewrite code: 
    Rewrite the code in a programming language, capable of machine execution.

Network with computers: 
    Every individual, home, organisation and government should be 
    networked through computers.

Make democracy feasible: 
    With that network of transparency and publicity, bring in Ramarajya.

As the great Mahatma said, "When we have the Government of our dream, we may enjoy some innocent pleasures."

Liberties in Cyber Space

Cyber space teems with tumultuous arguments on liberties. "Declaration of Independence of Cyber Space" by John Perry Barlow at http://members.aye.net/~hippie/barlow/barlowci.htm
points to the futility of governing cyber space, not to speak of governing from it. He thunders, "You have no sovereignty where we gather." Marvin Minsky has the simplest argument against the libertarians: "Societies need rules that make no sense for individuals. For example, it makes no difference whether a single car drives on the left or on the right. But it makes all the difference when there are many cars!"

The compromise is that any society needs to settle down a few working rules. It is very interesting to use machines to help us in executing those rules. They raise many issues. An old note of mine, to provoke thought:

---

e-governance and e-transparency solutions are most welcome. But then,
the solution itself should also be free, open and transparent. ...
Law itself is public, free and open in nature. Our Supreme Court had the
occasion in Naresh v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1] to consider
the merits of open and public trials for "healthy objective and fair
administration of justice," and quoted Bentham with approval as follows:

"In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest, and evil in every
shape, have full swing. ... Publicity is the very soul of justice.
It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards
against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under
trial in the sense that the security of securities is publicity."

The principles laid are equally true for governance. Without free
software, it is hard to even imagine a e-governance software.

But, I am personally wary of using the expression "e-governance software".

The law is the common background for all human activity. Besides
governance, law operates upon a large area. Governance is specially
grouped under the heading Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. We
have Law of Contracts, Torts, Law of Property, Family Law, Labour Law
etc. wherein "governance" is minimal or even totally absent. If an
application can handle Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, then
there are no reasons why it should not handle the Law of Contracts or
the other laws. We have people designing "banking software", "insurance
software", "billing software", as though the law has these water tight
compartments. We have ERP, CRM, B2B, B2C, G2G, G2B, etc. etc, with
others promising to integrate ERP with CRM, CRM with the rest in all
possible permutations and combinations. It makes business sense but no
legal sense.

Can any e-governance software check constitutionality of code? If they
can't, then they better not call themselves by such a name.

Besides, consider the following:

Suppose an e-governance application wants to assist litigants in filing
plaints. While automating preparation of plaints, some issues arise.
If more than one plaintiff sues, the script should use "plaintiffs"
otherwise, "plaintiff". In appeals, for the same reason it chooses
between "appellants" and "appellant". Soon, a function that would give
the plural for singular nouns like applicant, petitioner, claimant,
defendant, and respondent becomes necessary. This exercise soon takes
one to examining the rules of English grammar. If an application can
handle legal rules well, then it might handle rules of English grammar
as well. But the most singular difficulty would be in listing the rules
of English grammar. Tamil has Agathiam (the primary grammar text, but
no longer in vogue) > Tholkappiam (Secondary text, based on Agathiam),
and > finally the recent Nanool, where everything from how letters are
formed, classified, pronounced, to usage, root words, verbs,
concatanation, and every thing necessary to use the language are dealt
with thoroughly. Assuming that after consensus, acceptable rules of
English grammar for the present are available, we could write functions
such as:

    function get_plural($singlular){
        // returns plural for a given singular
        ....
    }

To write a perfect get_plural function, we need to know if the word
passed to the function is a noun or not. Now, we have to write

    function is_noun($word){
        // returns if word is a noun
        ....
    }

As you see, one thing leads to another, and soon we will have a large
library of functions that deal with many aspects of English grammar.
Then our scripts will write well, and may be read well too.

Once we write such a library, there is no reason why this should be
confined to just an "e-governance" application. We could use it even
better in the field of education or wherever English is used.

Consider another scenario.

Recently, an ONGC helicopter crashed into the sea near Mumbai, and an
Enquiry has been ordered into it. The survivor & eye witnesses reported
that the helicopter went into a spin before crashing into the sea. It
is well known that the tail propellor prevents a helicopter from
spinning. Did the tail propellor fail? We see that the enquiry soon
has to deal with the basic workings of an helicopter to arrive at the
truth for the cause of the accident. Though at the top level, things
look like "e-governance", as we go deep, we find ourselves into the
thick of rules of English grammar, the laws of aerodynamics, history, or
other fields of human knowledge.

Ancient sages dealt exhaustively on grammar, philosophy, ethics,
medicine, law, science and literature single handedly. Agathiar wrote
Agathiam creating a script for Tamil, codifing the rules of grammar, and
then dealt with medicine [Paripooranam 400], and initiated Girivalam, as
the simplest form of yoga, that could be practiced by one and all.
Agathiar is believed to have brought his first love, River Cauvery, to
Tamil Nadu. Well, then he might have organised the flow of the River
with the aid of the local kings. Patanjali wrote upon Sanskrit Grammar,
Ayurveda and Yoga, and though the works stand distinctively, a common
thread unites them. A unity at some point is required for scientific
progress and human prosperity.

Free software offers all the tools we can ask for. The next big step
would be when human knowlege is ported across so that software
applications abound with life, intelligence and wisdom.

Consilience '06 at NLSIU

The purpose of this blog is to promote porting legislation to computers: we need to have supercomputers running legal code at the speed of light. An unintentional useful side effect is it will aid and boost ai systems. I have given a few talks on what needs to be done to make that possible. The "Law and Technology Committee" at NLISU organised an event a couple of years ago, in which a number of leaders participated and shared their thoughts. My minutes follow:

---

,----[A brief note on:-
| Consilience 06 * Law and Technology Committee * el~t�k * NLSIU
| A Conference on Free/Open Source Software
|
| SCHEDULE
| 26th July, 2006- Day One:
| ========================
| 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM- Session on Intellectual Property and FOSS
| * Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yatindra Singh, Judge, Allahabad High Court
| * Mr. Sunil Abraham, Manager, International Open Source Network
| 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM- Refreshment Break
| 11:45 AM to 1:30 AM- Session on Using FOSS in Public Administration
| * Mr. Ramanraj K, Lawyer, Chennai
| 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM- Lunch
| 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM- Session on Licensing Matters
| * Mr. Neel Mason, Lawyer, Delhi
|
| 27th July, 2006- Day Two:
| ========================
| 8:30 AM- Richard Stallman address via videoconference:
| Why software wants to be free, followed by discussion.
| 11:45 AM to 2:00 PM- Session of FOSS Business Models
| * Mr. Atul Chitnis, Sr. Vice President,
| Geodesic Information Systems Pvt. Ltd
| * Mr. Anand Babu, Member, FSF India & Software Developer
| 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM- Session on Protecting FOSS Assets
| * Mr. Kenneth Gonsalvez, NRC-FOSS, Chennai
| 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM- Refreshment Break
| 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM- Lunch
| 3:00 PM to 5:30 PM- Session on Policy Implications of FOSS
| - An Indian Perspective
| * Dr. Nagarjuna, Chairman, Free Software Foundation of India
| * Mr. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Consultant,
| Planning Commission of India
| 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM- Open discussion and debate on conference points
| and follow-up
| 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM- Closing session at Hotel Central Park Plaza with
| accompanying dinner/mixer
|
| VENUE
| Primary conference sessions for the 26th and 27th will take place at
| the Training Centre in the National Law School of India University
| (NLSIU) campus at Nagarbhavi (Near Chandra Layout off Mysore road;
| 12km from city centre). Closing session and dinner will take place at
| Hotel Central Park Plaza (In Manipal Centre, near M.G. Road). The
| accomdation for the keynote speakers will be provided for at the
| Training Centre in the NLSIU campus.
|
| WEB SITE
| http://www.nls.ac.in/consilience2006/index.html
`----

The Consilience 06 event at NLSIU, Bangalore, briskly started on 26th,
with the Convenor Mr. Raman Chima briefly introducing the event
focused on the business, legal and policy issues relating to Free/Open
Source Software [FOSS].

The key note speech by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yatindra Singh presented
the various facets of the laws governing computer programs. Source
code and object code, could be protected as copyrights or trade
secrets. Object code of both free and non-free software are protected
by copyright. While free software source code is protected under
copyright law, the source code of non-free software is seldom
published and is generally protected as trade secrets. The indepth
critical analysis on the legal position of "software patents", in the
light of TRIPs and US decisions and law practiced there and in other
jurisdictions was beacon of light and guidance. The works and
thoughts by the Hon'ble Judge on the legal aspects of FOSS and other
topics are available at http://yksingh.blogspot.com

The intricate questions of law in this sphere are not only a rich
field of study for research by law students, but may also invite
opinions of Courts in future. The Judge hinted that questions of law
involving interpretation are largely answered with one's heart,
pointing to the famous dictum of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr:

"The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience."

[The full text of "The Common Law" by Justice Holmes is available at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/cmnlw10.txt ]

It is indeed the heart which ultimately guides law and logic.

The Allahabad High Court web site http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in is
probably one of the finest in India, with convenient to use RSS feeds,
using open standards and free software to publish judgments and other
records of the Court online. The judicial leadership by Hon'ble
Justice Yatindra Singh has indeed created a fine model for emulation
by other Courts.

Our Hon'ble Courts could perhaps also frame and designate suitable
standards to enable citation of judgments published online. In
Australia, the Australasian Legal Information Institute had taken the
initiative to build a legal database at http://www.austlii.edu.au/ to
provide information about the Australasian laws covering almost all
legislative Acts, judicial decisions and records in those
jurisdictions. Hon'ble Justice L T Olsson of the Supreme Court of
South Australia wrote the "GUIDE TO UNIFORM PRODUCTION OF JUDGMENTS"
to enable production of judgments in a standard format, paving the
way for vendor and medium neutral citation in Australia. The Guide is
available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/CompLRes/1999/1/

FOSS tools help to power austlii.org and technical details about it
are available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/technical.html
Details about how the austlii project was created, funded and works is
available at: http://www.lawonline.cc/accesslawright.htm under the
title "Free the Law". In India, NIC maintains a large legal database,
but it would be useful if a system of reference is devised to enable
vendor and medium neutral citation for use in India as in Australia.

Sunil Abraham, Manager, IOSN, under the United Nations Development
Programme spoke next.

My talk was on using FOSS for Public Administration in the light of
the Calpp project experience. The slides I used are available at:
http://freeshell.in/~ramanraj/calpp_nlsiu.pdf

The "transition" effect for the slides is as follows :)

I started off with the issues in using FOSS for Public Administration.
Law and computers have a few common issues that are strikingly
similar:

1) Legal issues -> Law is both:
(i) a simple truth system
(ii) a complex system with dynamic rules and hierarchies
2) Technological issues -> Computers are also both
(i) a simple truth system
(ii) a complex system with no solutions for the AI problem

Law is trivial at one level and extremely complex at another. For the
vast majority, law could easily appear as a simple truth system. The
high ethics, morals and laws, say for instance Avvayar's Attisudi, the
"Golden Alphabet" of Tamil language and culture, could be taught to
even 1st standard children, and the whole legal code could easily be
etched in one's head and heart to be executed for life without much
difficulty. India has deep roots in such a tradition where truth is
regarded as the highest law. It is no coincidence that our national
motto is "satyameva jayathe" - "truth triumphs" etched on our national
symbol. Max Muller and others have commented on the truthful nature
of Indians and panchayats were able to swiftly settle disputes as
there was seldom any argument over facts. There have been criminal
sessions at the Madras High Court when there was not a single case for
trial. If we could take truthfulness for granted, that in itself
solves a critical issue in Public Administration - every task from
collecting tax to executing public works, and reporting facts to
decision making and law making could be done with great efficiency.

But, fact is that law has become extremely complex over the years.
The BL degree course in law is studied for five years and then legal
minds, spend several years in active practice and may yet fail to have
ready answers to issues. Legal rules are the most complex, as they are
dynamic, changing all the time. Law has become so complex, that it is
widely accepted that it could take help from computers to improve
speed and efficiency in the execution of laws.

Computers are information processing devices. They are fundamentally,
very simple truth machines. They can interpret the on or off states
as true (1) or false (0) and do simple boolean logic on them. Bits
are grouped together as bytes, and the ASCII standard based on the
English alphabet is widely used. Everything else from source code to
machine code rest on such a simple foundation.

According to the Church�Turing thesis, a computer with a certain
minimum threshold capability is in principle capable of performing the
tasks of any other computer. A Turing machine has only a single data
structure, a variable-length linear array called the tape. Each
component of the tape contains just a single character.

Representation of a computer is as simple as this:

....10001101001011001011101000010001011010101101001011110000....
.^. --->read/write/shift pointer

[ rwx permission bits are basic to any time sharing operating system ]

Any computable function can be computed by a Turing machine. It takes
almost no machinery to achieve universality, other than some sort of
unlimited storage capacity. Even an extremely simple set of data
structures and operations are sufficient to allow any computable
function to be expressed. Anything can be done in LISP, Python, PHP,
C etc as long as infinite storage and time is given. The differences
between programming languages is not quantitative but qualitative in
how elegantly, easily, and effectively things can be done.

Now, humans are endowed with natural computing abilities. In theory,
all our computing functions could be performed by a computer, if we
admit the Church-Turing thesis, that has not been proved but accepted
by mathematicians as true. But then, why is it that there is no such
computer program around, and every software project needs several
hundred developers? That takes us to the complexity issue with
computers - common sense reasoning is not yet possible and the AI
problem is without a solution for the past more than 35 years.

The chief reason for the failure brings out the deep connection
between law and computers. How would a robot know how to deal with
humans and others? Often, Assimov's three laws of robotics are cited,
but they are too simplistic - law is more detailed in describing such
matters. Law is often the best judge of what is relevant and what is
not. The computing field has not taken law seriously enough, and that
has prevented the evolution of robust AI systems. Law is at the core
of our lives, and when it is ported to computers, they would have the
chance to do common sense reasoning.

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together"
of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an
intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos. Avvayar talked about
"onraka kaanbathe kaatchi" (to see is to see as one) and most our
theories on cosmology have this core principle and most of our sages
were masters of language, medicine, yoga and various fields and could
deal indepth with each at the same time.

The wikipedia article on informations systems observes: "We need a new
paradigm for addressing Information Integrity. The current approach
to Information Integrity is unscientific, ad hoc, sporadic and costly.
Apart from privacy and security, there has been scant attention on the
trustworthiness or integrity of information and of the interconnected,
integrated information processes and systems. By and large,
Information Integrity is addressed from isolated perspectives within
each organization, or as specific issues unique to accounting,
finance, law, medicine, engineering, hardware, software and the like.
Consequently, industry, government and society are paying an
inordinately high price for the level of Information Integrity that
there is, and facing enormous, unforeseen risks from catastrophic
Information Integrity."

That sums up the issues at hand.

Devising the appropriate representation for information is the key to
solving the issues involved here.

As a legal professional, I was only interested in finding tools I
could use to help me with my professional work. It came as a bit of
surprise that there were not really any tools around that fit my needs
- slowly, I realised I need to create them myself. The Fair Rent
Calculator was my first computer program, and that exercise exposed
the various constraints in using computers to serve us. The Calpp
design was made to minimise spending time on writing code to create
interfaces. Incidentally, that provided an elegant method to store
information about the work flow taking away the need of using the if
.. then .. or the do .. while .. constructs minimising coding effort.

Calpp represents rules under three tables procedures, steps,
particulars and when invoked as a proceeding, the information input is
validated and stored in three corresponding tables proceedings, events
and details. The slides explain the design in more detail, and the
implementation has been done using PHP, JavaScript and PostgreSQL.
The calpp project work is online and in progress at
http://calpp.freeshell.in/calpp I had to stop here as it was time for
lunch.

The simple scheme used in Calpp helps to also serve as an AI model
which is merely a Turing machine with multiple pointers, and a
hearbeat pulse drawing on the index which could emulate the plane of
our mind:

...1000110100101100101110100001010...
.^. .^. .^. .^. --->multiple read/write/shift pointers
\______|_______|______/ --->heartbeat pulse / index plane

Each pointer may be visualised as a user using the tape, or any
sensor, device or any seat of intelligence accessing the tape. The
index of all tables may be periodically accessed at heartbeat pulses
of the clock (which is as simple as cron running a script at
appropriate intrevals) with some overall objectives in memory, and we
could have a system that throbs with life.

Most of the time-sharing operating systems freely available today, are
multi-user, multi-tasking, systems with a wide range of scripting
tools and other computing facilities. Anand Babu mentioned about the
evolving 60 Petabyte machines, that is very close to the unlimited
storage tape. There are really no technological handicaps in the way
of having a full fledged AI system at work. The task of informing
computers about the rules and functions we use alone needs to be done,
and when a critical number of functions have been loaded, we would
certainly have the pleasure of sharing our lives with intelligent
automatons lacking flesh and blood but nonetheless sharing our
spirits.

Calpp would not only enable computer aided legal procedures and
proceedings, but solve the AI problem. It has been such a pleasure
working on Calpp, and if you are interested in joining this exciting
journey, please visit http://calpp.freeshell.in/calpp It is said, "The
spirited mind will not be content to remain within itself. It will
reach out for chances to prove its worth." When man and machine do
unite in spirits, I hope that would pave way for visiting the farthest
cosmos and the innermost depth of our consiousness, with rich networks
of information and better sharing of resources.

Public Administration could be greatly simplified if the issues are
taken seriously and we set ourselves to work. Merely publishing
information online on a web server and setting the permission bits to
755 so that public may access them would elegantly implement the right
to information. GNU Mailman could be used by almost any municipal
body or local body as a simple means of grievance redressal. We could
begin with these simple tools, which would help us build more
sophisticated solutions as we move on.

The session after lunch was on licensing matters relating to FOSS and
Neel Mason, alumni of NLSIU, and now a lawyer at Delhi, dealt with the
subject.

R. Hari from IBM, Project Manager, OSSRC, told us the story how the
great Indian epic Ramayana originated. Shiva told the story to
Parvathi, who then told it to Kakakushandi, who repeated it to
Garudar, who passed it on to Valmiki, who is now well known for having
written it down, and Tulsidas to Kambar have derived their works from
Valmiki! Free software projects are just like that, having many
versions, authors and generations of users involved in the process of
creating, maintaining and keeping the work alive. After that very
interesting analogy, he took us through the various activities carried
on at OSSRC - they have a students portal, innovation portal and other
specialised sections. They are attempting to use moodle in education
and involved with improving healthcare using FOSS. His presentation
was short and sweet. Visit http://www.ossrc.org.in to know more about
the work done to promote FOSS by his organisation. Day one closed
here.

The other speaker from IBM was Ashish Gautam, an Open Standards
Specialist, who spoke on the importance of having open standards. He
spoke the next day, on the various standards used from neck ties,
power supply apparatus to opportunities that open standards could
provide in the computing field. FOSS tools are invariably built around
well recognized standards. FreeBSD and linux are POSIX compliant, the
free compilers and databases are mostly implementations of the ANSI C
and SQL standards, and any free browser works with the W3C standards
for HTML, CSS, DOM, XML, and others.

Day two was scheduled to open with Richard Stallman's address via
videoconference on the topic "Why software wants to be free", but due
to technical reasons, only an audio link could be established. The
quality of the transmission was poor, and I could catch only a few
lines here and there. I could hear him narrate on freedoms zero to
three and sometime later say, "history shows its easy to loose
freedom".

That was followed by a session of FOSS Business Models covered by Atul
Chitnis and Anand Babu.

Atul Chitnis started with how he can scare people to death with his
talks on FOSS. I am not sure if students took that line seriously,
but I wondered if the next time I made a speech, I could begin, "I am
here to talk about killer applications ..." Wait a minute, free
software is indeed closing on non-free software but there is a more
serious killing issue with the Calpp project - if someone does add the
Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code to the Calpp
project, and if our Criminal Courts did start using Calpp with those
procedures in place, and during a proceeding, the Courts do find
someone guilty of murder and sentence the accused to be hanged until
dead, he could get killed by an executioner. That sent a scary chill
down my spine. The rain and cool weather outside along with the
freezing air-conditioning inside made things worse - I started
shivering with my teeth chattering. To add to my discomfort, the
execution in Calcutta some years ago flashed - though the accused was
alleged to have raped and murdered the victim, even women were holding
placards protesting the execution asking "if killing is bad, how could
we kill a person and tell him it is bad?" That is an indefensible
argument against capital punishment from some of the people living in
the land of Buddha and Gandhi. The accused there was reported to have
pleaded his innocence even minutes before the execution, and I
certainly wish, we could live in a society where there would be no
victims or even the thought about any crime. Good education and
training in the practice of moral, ethical and legal percepts from
young age could make a big difference. If this train of thought sounds
like it is way, way away from FOSS and you are very particular about
hearing just FOSS, try chanting "FOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooSSsss..." while
reading :) FOSS in Public Administration is certainly about making law
work efficiently keeping peace in society ensuring peaceful changes.
It holds out a promise to establish a GOLDEN age of peace and
prosperity when science, commerce and arts would flourish, with all
citizens living in peace and harmony with nature. FOSS is about
sharing resources with neighbours, and almost every FOSS tool from the
kernel to applications like GNU Mailman to the Apache Web Server all
help to serve human needs better by sharing information speedily and
with efficiency.

Atul Chitnis was correct in commenting that much of the debate on
whether "open source" is legal, valid, viral, cancerous (a la Steve
Balmer), dangerous, economically viable and the other questions of
that kind as quite stale belonging to the previous century. FUD is
dead and gone.

Anand Babu spoke about his involvement with various free software
projects, along with the business models associated with his
work.

Kenneth Gonsalves talked for sometime. G Nagarjun made a presentation
on FOSS from his position as a scientist, stressing the importance of
knowledge and code, and the process of coding, encoding, decoding and
recoding. Freedom of access to knowledge and code is very important
for social equality and progress. Matter and energy are conserved,
but time is not. It is much easier to save time by sharing knowledge
and code. You may write to fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in if you have any
questions on the mission and actitivies of Free Software Foundation of
India.

Time and again, the question of patentability of software came up for
discussion. I had occasion to explain "computer programs per se" at
http://gnowledge.org/pipermail/fsf-friends/2005-December/003740.html
and about the scope of Articles 27 & 10 of the TRIPs treaty at
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2005-December/001838.html
I hope that helps while doing research on those issues. India could
prosecute US and Japan at WTO for its "software patent" practices
which are against free trade and the interests of Indian software
developers who may want to deal with markets there.

Ankur Singla, student at NLSIU, narrated the various FOSS initiatives
in India. The most refreshing opinions came from Sudhir Krishnasamy
(Consultant, Planning Commission of India), an alumni of NLSIU. He
analysed the FOSS policies and practices of governments across the
globe, and made concrete suggestions to enable a sound FOSS framework
in India. Most speakers largely agreed that there should be a policy
favouring open standards in governance and public affairs.

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) was also released at
the event.

It is very important to have hands on experience with free software to
fully understand how it is maintained and sustained. I do hope NLSIU
students organise a free software user group to start using it in
their daily activities, which will certainly help them to also to get
more acquainted with the legal aspects. Free software and Law have a
long history of being inexplicably intertwined - please read "Free for
All" by Peter Wayner available at http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa/ to
know more about the evolution and history of free software. The
TCP/IP stack was released under a free license making a free internet
possible, and the growth of FOSS thereafter. The future of free
software is very much in each of our hands.

Legal Algorithms

I wrote the following article in 1989 or so, for the Madras Law College magazine. That was the first time I used "artificial intelligence". The porting of law to computers should happen at a faster pace within a decade.

---

Legal Algorithms
by K. Ramanraj

Many rules, especially legal rules are very complicated, involving exceptions, qualifications and provisos. To assist our understanding of the structure and meaning of complex rules, we can employ a method of diagrammatic presentation of rules - the algorithm. An algorithm is a precise set of instructions for solving a well defined problem. It takes the form of a structured series of questions with answers providing instructions for total or partial resolution of the problem.¹

An algorithm comprises a sequence of questions to which the answer is either yes(true) or o(false). Each answer automatically takes the reader to the next question relevant to his case. Either of these answers may take the reader outside the ambit of the rule or provide a solution to his specific case.

Illustration 1:

Section 41 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, reads as follows:

"Where with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith."

The above section deals with the transfer by an ostensible owner. To test the applicability of this section to a particular case, the following algorithm could be used:

 +----------+
 | Start    |
 +----------+
     |
     V
 +-----------------------+               +-----------------+
 | Is the transferor the | no            | Section 41 is   |
 |   ostensible owner?   |--->---------->| not applicable  |
 +-----------------------+      |        +-----------------+
     | yes                      |
     V                          |
 +-----------------------+      |
 | Is he the ostensible  | no   |
 | owner by the express  |--->--+
 | or impled consent of  |      |
 | the true owner?       |      |
 +-----------------------+      |
            | yes                      |
     V                          |
 +-----------------------+      |
 | Was the transfer for  | no   |
 | consideration?        |--->--+
 |                       |      |
 +-----------------------+      |
     | yes                      |
     V                          |
 +-----------------------+      |
 | Did the transfree take| no   |
 | reasonable care to    |--->--+
 | ascertain that the    |      |
 | transferor had power  |      |
 |  to transfer?         |      |
 +-----------------------+      |
     | yes                      |
     V                          |
 +-----------------------+      |
 | Did the transfree act | no   |
 | in good faith?        |--->--+
 |                       |      
 +-----------------------+      
     | yes
     V
 +-----------------------+
 | Section 41 applies    | 
 |                       |      
 +-----------------------+    

The algorithm breaks up the rule into digestible parts. It begins with a "Start" box. The questions are arranged in the correct logical sequence. The questions, answers and instructions are boxed. Each question can have only one yes and one no. The lines connecting the boxes are arrowed.

The algorithm presents rules and sections in a visually more comprehensible form than conventional forms. It helps to identify a range of possible courses of action that might be taken in order to solve a given problem. A well devised algorithm can evaluate and predict the outcome of a case.

Illustration 2:

Under English law, all killing is murder, unless the contrary is
established by the accused². Malice is the grand criterion which distinguishes murder from other killing. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines culpable homicide in
Section 299 and murder in section 300. The causing of death is common to both the offenses. The distinction between the two sections is important as it determines the gravity of the offense and the severity of the punishment. Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted below for reference.

299. Culpable homicide

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.


Illustrations


(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3- The causing. of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.


300. Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-

Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-

Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-

Fourthly,- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.


(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of
causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any
disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although
he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the
ordinary course of nature would cause death.


(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z
dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.


(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.


Exception 1- When culpable homicide is not murder- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power
of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of
any other person by mistake or accident.


The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-


First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing. or doing harm to any
person.


Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant.


Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.


Explanation- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question
of fact.



Illustrations

(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as
much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an
act caused by the provocation.


(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to
be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.


(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as
much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.


(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured
himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.


(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is
moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing
done in the exercise of the right of private defence.


(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to
cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable
homicide, but A is guilty of murder.


Exception 2- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person
or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.


Illustration

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A
believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed
murder, but only culpable homicide.


Exception 3- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding. a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith,
believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person
whose death is caused.


Exception 4. -Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.


Explanation- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.


Exception 5- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years,
suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.


Illustration

A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he
was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

An algorithm could be
used to decide if the offense is murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide under Section 299.





+-------+
| Start |
+-------+
    |
    V
+-------------------------------+     +---------------+                   +---------+                
| Was there the killing of a    | no  |Not covered by |                   |Murder   |                
| human being by a human being? |---->|algorithm      |    +------------->|under    |
+-------------------------------+     +---------------+    |              |S. 300   |
    |yes                                                   |              +---------+
    |                                                      |
    V                                                      |no
+-------------------------------+     +-----------------------------+     +------------------+
|Was the act by which death     |     |Does it fall under           |     |Culpable Homicide |
|ensued done with the intention | yes |any of the exceptions        | yes |not amounting to  |
|of causing death?              |---->|to Section 300?              |---->|murder            |
+-------------------------------+     +-----------------------------+     +------------------+
    |no                                                                          ^
    |                                                                            |
    V                                                                            |no
+-------------------------------+     +-----------------------------+     +-----------------------------+
|Was the act by which death was |     |Was that act done with the   |     |Was that act done with the   |
|caused, done with the intention|     |intention of causing bodily  |     |intention of causing such    |
|of causing such bodily injury  | yes |injury to any person and the | no  |bodily injury as the offender|
|as is likely to cause death?   |---->|bodily injury intended to be |---->|knows to be likely to cause  |
+-------------------------------+     |inflicted is sufficient in   |     |the death of the person to   |
   |no                                |the ordinary course of       |     |whom the harm is caused?     |
   |                                  |nature to cause death?       |     +-----------------------------+   
   |                                  +-----------------------------+            |yes
   |                                      |yes                                   |
   |                                      +--->-----------------------------+    |
   |                                                                        |    |
   V                                                                        V    V
+-------------------------------+     +-----------------------------+     +-----------------------------+
|Was the act by which death was |     |Was the act done with the    |     |Does the act fall under any  |
|caused done with the knowledge |     |knowledge that the act is so | yes |any of the exceptions to     |
|that the act is likely to cause| yes |imminently dangerous that it |---->|Section 300?                 |
|death?                         |---->|must in all probability cause|     +-----------------------------+
+-------------------------------+     |death or such bodily injury  |        |yes                |no
   |no                                |and without any excuse for   |        |                   |
   |                                  |incurring the risk of causing|        V                   V
   V                                  |death or such injury?        |     +-----------------+ +---------+
+----------------+                    +-----------------------------+     |Culpable homicide| |Murder   |
|Lawful Homicide |                        |no                             |not amounting to | |under    |
+----------------+                        +--->-------------------------->|murder.          | |S. 300   | 
                                                                          +-----------------+ +---------+
   



Lord Macaulay, who drafted the Code, had the genius to formulate in
such clear language the intricate essentials of murder in Section 300. The algorithm
is based on the distinction made by Mevil, J., in Reg v. Govinda. This algorithm can
be expanded to include the exceptions under Section 300 and the punishment for the said
offenses under Section 302 and 304.

Algorithms and Programming

Algorithms form the basis of computer programs. A different
species of diagrammatic presentation, the flowchart, is used instead. An algorithm
or a flowchart, once drawn can be translated into a language which the computer
understands. The algorithm will determine the scope and utility of a computer
program.

"Jurimetrics" is a term coined by computer analysts to
denote the scientific investigation of legal problems. It includes the application
of electronic techniques in solving legal problems. The computer which is an
essential component of jurimetric research, can aid the lawyer in several areas including
information storage and retrieval³, behavior analysis of judicial decisions⁴ etc.


Computers can sort and search data (legal equivalent of data is
facts) very quickly. Once all decisions are entered into a computer, it can be
programmed to search for cases relevant and material to the case in hand. It can
scan through volumes of reports in minutes. Over ruled cases could be automatically
erased or marked to inform the user. Computerization can also standardize
documentation. Preparing pleadings, statements and deeds are simplified by the
computer. A lawyer can also find several other uses for it.


The Indian Law Commission, in its 125th Report, while considering
the problem of pending cases in the courts, suggested the use of computers to streamline
administration of justice in the courts. Extensive use of computers will shorten the time taken for disposal of cases, and improve our legal system.


Elsewhere, while the frontiers of artificial intelligence are being
explored, we are currently discovering the existence of the computer. Programs that
suit our legal system have to be evolved. It is important that some positive steps
are taken to strengthen faith in our democracy without which there cannot be peace and
harmony.

____________________

Notes:

[¹] For a detailed analysis refer to How to do things with Rules, William Twining and David Miers (1980).
[²] Hari Singh Gour, The Penal Law of India, Volume III, (1967), p. 1903.

[³] For further reading on this, refer to "Computers for Lawyers", Lex et Juris, September 1987, p.40.
[⁴] T.K. Viswanathan, "Slot Machine Justice", Madras Law College Magazine, Vol.LII, p.14.

---

Copyright (C) 2001 K. Ramanraj
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.