[ExI] patents was RE: simulation as an improvement over reality

[Dave Sill]

I could have sworn I saw a message here about Doug Englebart's death, but
searching my gmail archives I only found this old message from Spike.
Anyway, wanted to share this article I got via Google+:

http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/

A few words on Doug Engelbart
Bret Victor / July 3, 2013

Doug Engelbart died today. His work has always been very difficult for
writers to interpret and explain.

Technology writers, in particular, tend to miss the point miserably,
because they see everything as a technology problem. Engelbart devoted his
life to a human problem, with technology falling out as part of a solution.
When I read tech writers' interviews with Engelbart, I imagine these
writers interviewing George Orwell, asking in-depth probing questions about
his typewriter.

Here's the most facile interpretation of Engelbart, splendidly exhibited by
this New York Times headline:

Douglas C. Engelbart, Inventor of the Computer Mouse, Dies at 88

This is as if you found the person who invented writing, and credited them
for inventing the pencil. (This analogy may be more apt than any of us are
comfortable with.)

Then there's the shopping list interpretation:

His system, called NLS, showed actual instances of, or precursors to,
hypertext, shared screen collaboration, multiple windows, on-screen video
teleconferencing, and the mouse as an input device.

These are not true statements.

* * *

Engelbart had an intent, a goal, a mission. He stated it clearly and in
depth. He intended to augment human intellect. He intended to boost
collective intelligence and enable knowledge workers to think in powerful
new ways, to collectively solve urgent global problems.

The problem with saying that Engelbart "invented hypertext", or "invented
video conferencing", is that you are attempting to make sense of the past
using references to the present. "Hypertext" is a word that has a
particular meaning for us today. By saying that Engelbart invented
hypertext, you ascribe that meaning to Engelbart's work.

Almost any time you interpret the past as "the present, but cruder", you
end up missing the point. But in the case of Engelbart, you miss the point
in spectacular fashion.

Our hypertext is not the same as Engelbart's hypertext, because it does not
serve the same purpose. Our video conferencing is not the same as
Engelbart's video conferencing, because it does not serve the same purpose.
They may look similar superficially, but they have different meanings. They
are homophones, if you will.

Here's an example.

* * *



Say you bring up his 1968 demo on YouTube and watch a bit. At one point,
the face of a remote collaborator, Bill Paxton, appears on screen, and
Engelbart and Paxton have a conversation.

"Ah!", you say. "That's like Skype!"

Then, Engelbart and Paxton start simultaneously working with the document
on the screen.

"Ah!", you say. "That's like screen sharing!"

No. It is not like screen sharing at all.

If you look closer, you'll notice that there are two individual mouse
cursors. Engelbart and Paxton are each controlling their own cursor.

"Okay," you say, "so they have separate cursors, and when we screen share
today, we have to fight over a single cursor. That's a trivial detail; it's
still basically the same thing."

No. It is not the same thing. At all. It misses the intent of the design,
and for a research system, the intent matters most.

Engelbart's vision, from the beginning, was collaborative. His vision was
people working together in a shared intellectual space. His entire system
was designed around that intent.

>From that perspective, separate cursors weren't a feature so much as a
symptom. It was the only design that could have made any sense. It just
fell out. The collaborators both have to point at information on the
screen, in the same way that they would both point at information on a
chalkboard. Obviously they need their own pointers.

Likewise, for every aspect of Engelbart's system. The entire system was
designed around a clear intent.

Our screen sharing, on the other hand, is a bolted-on hack that doesn't
alter the single-user design of our present computers. Our computers are
fundamentally designed with a single-user assumption through-and-through,
and simply mirroring a display remotely doesn't magically transform them
into collaborative environments.

If you attempt to make sense of Engelbart's design by drawing
correspondences to our present-day systems, you will miss the point,
because our present-day systems do not embody Engelbart's intent. Engelbart
hated our present-day systems.

* * *

If you truly want to understand NLS, you have to forget today. Forget
everything you think you know about computers. Forget that you think you
know what a computer is. Go back to 1962. And then read his intent.

The least important question you can ask about Engelbart is, "What did he
build?" By asking that question, you put yourself in a position to admire
him, to stand in awe of his achievements, to worship him as a hero. But
worship isn't useful to anyone. Not you, not him.

The most important question you can ask about Engelbart is, "What world was
he trying to create?" By asking that question, you put yourself in a
position to create that world yourself.

----

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:17 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> ...  I will grant at the same time that the US Patent office seems to have
> severe Alzheimers...spike
>
> Good story for you guys that involves extropians and patents:  a few years
> ago we got an invitation to a party at the home of Doug Englebart, the
> Xerox
> PARC guy who invented the mouse and a bunch of other computer stuff.  So we
> went up there and there were about thirty or so extropian types, the
> cryonics crowd, sci-fi fans, the usual suspects that show up at these sorts
> of events, but no Doug.  So I started asking around, who organized this and
> where's Doug etc, and no one knew so I was scouting around trying to figure
> out why we were having this big party at this guy's house and he isn't even
> home.
>
> I started to suspect it was all bogus.  Perhaps someone knew he would be
> out
> for the evening, rigged a big gag by inviting a bunch of yahoos, then the
> cops show up and we all end up in jail for breaking and entering har har
> and
> so forth.  We were there about a couple hours and still no host or home
> owner, and I was just feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing and
> started
> to drift towards the door, when up shows Doug, assuring us it was all as
> planned but he had another engagement earlier that evening, couldn't be
> cancelled and yakkity yak and bla bla.  Then he ended up chatting with my
> wife and me for about fifteen minutes right there in his own front entryway
> before even greeting the other guests, then took us on a tour through his
> house, showing us his computer inventions and so forth.
>
> Then he excused himself and went off to bed.  Doug was about 80 at the
> time,
> so his being tired is certainly understandable, but to retire for the
> evening with about thirty geeks in his house was I thought extraordinary.
> To
> let us have a party in his house while he was gone, then leave us as long
> as
> we wanted to stay with no apparent person in charge.  Trusting sort.  {8-]
> And about the nicest guy you ever met.
>
> In any case: he was telling us about how much trouble he had in the late
> 60s
> in patenting the mouse.  The Xerox PARC guys had an earlier version of the
> mouse which had two parallel wheels for which Doug did get a patent, but it
> wasn't a successful design.  There was a better version which he made from
> inverting a trackball, writing the software to reverse the controls and
> arranging the ergonomics to fit the hand.  Sound familiar?  Are you using
> something like that right now?  Or did back in the 80s and 90s?  The
> trademark office refused to give him a patent for that!  They argued that
> it
> was just an upside down trackball with clever software, but they didn't
> award trademarks or patents for software.  {8^D
> Haaaahahahahahaaaaheeeheehehee.  {8-]  That is just too funny.  They
> wouldn't give him a patent for an inverted track ball.  Eventually he
> managed to get some rights to that, which he sold to another one of the
> locals (Steve Jobs) for a song, when the patent for the trackball was still
> active and expensive, which is why most PCs have a mouse instead of a
> trackball to this day.
>
> Doug commented that later someone was awarded a patent for painting
> eyeballs
> and whiskers on a computer mouse to make it look like a mouse.  The patent
> office by that time not only awarded patents for software, but for painting
> a mouse to look like a mouse.  Presumably if someone painted a mouse to
> look
> like a mole or a rat, they could get yet another fresh patent.  Society's
> attitude toward intellectual property has experienced a remarkable
> revolution since Doug was a young inventor.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130704/73c1de37/attachment.html>