Intellectual Property of Computational Architect
@AIS2024, Tokyo University, Japan 

0. Overview

The profession of 'Computational Architect' is practised, but its achievements and responsibilities need to be better recognised because what it does is a profession that did not exist in society. If we were to interact through individual contracts, we would be gripped by the logic of economic strength and weakness. There are new ways of being in copyright, such as the Creative Commons. Shouldn't we be discussing this at conferences and other forums, including improving the status of the profession?




1. Occurrence

I want to slap the title on them in a cowboy way and say, "I don't care about titles" However, as long as I do business things among people, I am sometimes asked what I usually do. So I started calling myself a 'Computational Architect', which is the name of the job I am currently doing. The word 'architect' is not limited to those who create buildings but also means a person who makes a system in the broadest sense of the word. I realised that if I gave my title a name that is not accepted in the world, it would not function as a title, which is a strange dilemma.

By the way, when I have had the opportunity to practice with clients from various industries, I have come to understand the somewhat different circumstances in different sectors regarding IP, such as copyright and technology. Professionals are responsible for what they submit. For example, a baker makes good bread and does not cause food poisoning, an academic creates an extraordinary theory and does not lie in his/her thesis, and a carmaker creates a dream mobile vehicle and does not cause any defects. As long as one is involved with the public, achievements and responsibilities are inseparable from back-to-back stories.

So, what are our achievements and responsibilities as a company with the above titles? In broad terms, achievements are what we have achieved and what we have worked with, and our responsibilities are to ensure that the system is flawless and that we follow up on any flaws to the best of our ability, even if they are limited.

By the way, as mentioned above, each industry has its way of doing things for better or for worse. Those educated in engineering are pulled towards that way of thinking, and those educated in informatics are pulled towards that way of thinking. My values are based on architectural design studies, but I was also educated in science. Nowadays, I make something with my hands and computer, sometimes I am the designer, depending on the object. Sometimes, I am classified as a researcher or a consultant, depending on the laws and licences in the respective countries. The discrepancies between these two categories need to be clarified.

1. 起





2) Develop topics in other industries, too

Although a bit old, a 2013 Nikkei report also said identifying product defects is now more challenging than a decade ago. The focus is on the increasing complexity of products and the increasing use of electronic and embedded software. If we broaden the scope of artefacts, they may include everything that looks like human-made objects, from ancient sundials to recent aeroplanes. As I wrote in another paper, there is still time to say that recent objects and computational artefacts are inseparable. It can be described as software and hardware in less precise but more straightforward terms. There is no shortage of examples of systems that have failed to function due to faults in the software and other system components.

A few matters have come to mind in the news in recent years due to problems with things and systems, but several hellish issues have taken years to resolve, even with a bunch of grown-ups involved.

An example is the systemic problems at Bank M in Japan. In particular, several glitches have occurred since 2021; E-Bank's erroneous transfers, inconsistent balances, and ATM failures are still fresh in the memory. Banking is, by nature, a numbers profession, and it may be more of a failure of computer algorithms.

The other impressive hell was the recall of the F(English model name is J) car, the backbone of the H company, which began around 2013. Among them were engine and transmission control programme failures, a combination of mechanical and electronic control issues, which are not mentioned here. The DCT area, which I know is very troublesome to open, as transmissions of this era are a mixture of hydraulic and electronic circuits, which means that a local car shop can only sometimes fix them.

(*There are examples where the problem appears to be a problem but is simply a hardware failure or a failure of the computer mechanism.)

Some say hell is hell, but it depends on how one perceives it. Take, for example, the Google Pixel smartphone, which I also own. As is typical of IT companies these days, the product is still ongoing when it is launched. They put it on the market with defects and gradually remove them with firmware and software updates. In the meantime, hardware has progressively decreased in number due to age and obsolescence.

There should have been product liability laws and so on, but... Is it good that what IT companies do is less lethal, or is it because the industrial structure and rules have been established around concepts for a long time and have yet to catch up?









3) What our predecessors have thought about

ⅰ; Copyright and patent rights.

As for the 'things' that have cleared the harsh realities and responsibilities mentioned above and that make up the structure of the world, they are the product of human wisdom, ingenuity and organisation, and when viewed from afar, they shine brightly. If you want to know what the light is and are in a liberal arts mood, it is not hard to understand why you would like to find out whose work it is, etc. But this is the downside of anthropomorphism (*1). What is important is which knowledge and how it was combined with which knowledge is this one patent?

As mentioned earlier, we believe that both copyright and patent rights are limited and do not, by any means, cover the real world. However, copyright is said to have been created to motivate people. It is so plausible that it is not even a gimmick. So, let's look at that for a moment. (*2)

ii; Who did the design?

The point is that if we can neatly categorise artefact creation and evolution, we can talk about whose work it is, but in reality, it works differently than the logic in our heads.

Scholars who study design have several theories, but they divide the mechanisms of creation and creators into several categories, including the process of evolution in the beginning, improvement and design of artefacts. (The term evolution is also often confused with the analogical use of the term biological evolution, but for the time being, there is no appropriate term, so it is put on the shelf.) The types of creation are classified to some extent, and the creators are named. Starting with inventors who create from scratch, there are classifications, such as engineers who design intending to set and solve problems, engineers who solve simple problems, and repairmen who fix broken parts.

The author's esteemed scholar, J. Scott Turner, used the evolution (?) of drink packaging as an example in his book, so I looked into the evolution of packaging. As an example, I, too, looked into the evolution of canned juice packaging. I did some quick research and tried to justify it in the above categories, but it needed to be more straightforward. It depends on how detailed the research is, but the act of design is so general that the fact of causality is hard to see in the future.


ⅰ; 著作権とか特許権とか











I'll add it later.