July 17, 2016

Ricardian Contracts in the media!

Ricardian Contracts were featured in R3's event on Smart Contract Templates in coordination with Barclays.

See the deck, pages 44-67. The Riccy formed a big part of that event as the idea of laying out the prose contract alongside the smart code are now becoming evidently necessary as well as just merely necessary. The R3 weekend read pulls quotes from IBTimes / Lee Braine and Richard Gendal Brown:

The following pull quote is best contrasted with The DAO entry at the beginning of this post:
Braine said that one of the motivations for creating smart contracts, together with shared ledgers underneath them, is the opportunity to reduce the number and duration of disputes. Some of the potential improvements could result from simply making the relevant information, such as agreements governing specific trades, more easily accessible.

Brown agreed, adding: "If you look at the experience with The DAO recently, one of the key takeaways from that incident was that, in a system that perhaps had an express design goal of having the code be dominant, there is a need to have a broader contract that explains what happens in the event that things do go wrong."

This future of contracting sees a layout of {prose, code, params} which fully describe a smart contract entered into by parties, something I talked about in SOAC a while back.

Instead of the normal boring presentation on 'what' the Ricardian Contract is, I talked about 'why' with the hope that, by understanding the research origins that led to the design pattern, it would be clearer why it has to be so. I hope we can do a voice release or article / paper at some point so a little more context can be explained.

And, to round off the news, we now have the Ricardian Contract's own wikipedia page. Thanks to Arthur Doohan for that hard work!

Posted by iang at 05:40 PM | Comments (1)

July 12, 2016

IP concerns over Ricardian contracts

Just a short note to outline the intellectual property situation with Ricardian contracts.

When I invented the Ricardian Contract in 1995 - 1996, we (being Gary and myself and our company, Systemics) considered it to be standard engineering. It was what we felt any solid engineer would find if presented with the same problem. That was our mistake; it became slowly apparent that system after system failed to describe their contract of issue, and a non-trivial proportion of them foundered for that reason (although to be fair to their intent, a large number of those didn't want to describe the real details, and floundered as and when their hubris caught up with them).

Consequently we did not ever assert any intellectual property protections over the invention. The Ricardian Contract is, as far as I am concerned, an idea and concept in the public domain. No patents, no copyright, no trademarks have been filed, and none should ever be done given the time elapsed.

The design and implementation was fully published in 1996 when the first version of Ricardo was released as open source. There was a fair amount of documentation so you could clean-room engineer it if you wanted, although never enough for some :) It was finally described in its own academic paper presented in 2004, and before that there were a small number of other presentations and papers that described it (FC7, Erwin on XML).

I suppose it is possible that someone has filed patents on various extensions or variations that I've described and tracked in various places. But I've not heard of any, and nothing I've seen as yet changes the view that the entirety of that knowledge is public domain.

For the record, the recent work (Sum of all Chains - let's converge (video) or transcript and On the intersection of Ricardian and Smart Contracts) was likewise - presented openly with no assertion of intellectual property over the ideas within, and only the normal polite request to cite the author and link of those presentations. Otherwise, you are free to use.

iang, CARS

Posted by Prometheus at 05:41 PM | Comments (0)