[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontolog IPR issues

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 15:46:54 -0400
Message-id: <1F8CFA3D-12E0-474E-A0CB-B8241344F50A@xxxxxxxxx>

The "age-old" line was how we would like to treat things on this forum, the "you" who doesn't want to overly limit discussion was again meant to be this forum, and the liability of a forum with no real assets is left for the lawyers to squeeze out.


On May 6, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:

Ken Laskey wrote:

The problem with IPR is similar to the age-old academics feuds of who 
came up with what first. 

Ah, if only that were the issue.

The age-old academic feuds were about getting peer recognition and 
credit for the work or the idea.  Academics had no expectation of 
significant income from their ideas -- the best they could hope for was 
increased sales of their books.

Modern IPR in industrial communities is about using a form of 
"copyright" as a substitute for "patent", and the expectation is that 
"license" will/may produce significant income for someone, or keep 
others out of a domain in which the person/firm hopes to produce a 
product that will generate significant income.

This difference in motivation is key to understanding why IPR is a big 
deal.  It is not about getting credit for an idea, it is about who makes 
the money on the idea.

License for copyrighted material used to be about reproduction, because 
that was the means of dissemination and therefore the means of making 
money on it.  But we can no longer easily control the reproduction of 
any representations of ideas or artistic contributions because the 
physical medium is publicly accessible and cheap.  So the artistic 
professions are busy inventing artificial legal controls on the 
dissemination rather than the reproduction.

But somehow, in IT and then other engineering and scientific 
communities, we have turned these artificial controls into a new legal 
concept -- "intellectual property rights".  When we talk about IPR, we 
are talking about "owning a concept", not just the right to reproduce a 
particular representation.  And traditionally, ownership of a concept 
that has commercial value is the domain of *patent*.  Patent is about 
owning the use of an idea in a device for a particular purpose.  And to 
get a patent, you have to demonstrate that the idea is new, the 
application to the purpose is new, or the mechanism of use of the idea 
in the device is radically different from any other device for the 
purpose.  You don't just assert that you had the concept first; you 
demonstrate that you used that advantage in time to create the first 
useful application.

Instead of using patent intelligently and being more careful about our 
information leakage, we have created a field day for the lawyers.  We 
are trying to shortcut the patent process by claiming ownership of an 
idea based solely on publication of the concept, without having to have 
an associated product design and a feasibility demonstration.  And in so 
doing, we are trying to patent ideas instead of uses of ideas, concepts 
instead of designs.

Artists don't copyright concepts; they copyright performances and works. 
  Authors don't copyright ideas; they copyright their presentation of 
them.  And engineers don't patent concepts; they patent designs that 
demonstrate the use of them.

But now we have "intellectual property rights" -- ownership of ideas. 
And we should all be very afraid.

You don't want to overly limit what can be 
brought into a discussion ...

That depends on who "you" is.  In engineering communities, if you are 
developing product designs, you don't bring your ideas to public forums 
until after you have made the patent applications.  And if that is what 
you are doing, you don't contribute to the public forums anything more 
than is needed to accomplish whatever your objective in participation 
is.  It's a different world, and joint engineering activities have very 
careful disclosure rules, in order to avoid compromising patentable designs.

For Ontolog, we exchange ideas and if anyone feels infringed upon,
the recourse would seem to follow the traditional academic paths. 

It would, if we didn't need lawyers to protect those paths.
We are hiring lawyers and developing IPR rules to protect the free 
academic exchange of ideas from the misguided and the conniving and 
their lawyers.  That is, we are protecting our academic exchange from 
intruders who do not have the academic mindset.

If people feel there is a need to make disclosure statements that are
readily available for others to find, we may need to consider such a

If people feel the need to "make disclosure statements", to the effect 
that a given email contains licensed intellectual property, as distinct 
from simply citing a published work, further discussion of the topic in 
question should terminate instantly, and the viability of the forum is 
in doubt.  And yes, if we start to see that kind of thing as a regular 
occurrence, "free academic exchange" will be a thing of the past.


P.S. I apologize for the soapbox performance, but I view the current 
legal work on IP with great alarm.  Maybe, once enough lawyers have been 
paid to craft the language under which we can continue doing business as 
usual in tripartite (industry/academe/government) communities, the whole 
magilla will blow over.  But "I pray thee, put in to yonder port, for I 
fear a hurricane."

P.P.S.  This is NOT a NIST position.  It is mine.  (And I hope I'm too 
late to claim the IPR.)

Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."


Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>