ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent Application

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:43:51 -0400
Message-id: <4E9DF317.5050108@xxxxxxxx>


`'.(`'.().').' wrote:
> Aside from the dubious premise that patents actually encourage 
> innovation (at least in software), see: 
> http://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5364/698.full
> 
>http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2009/07/g8-on-intellectual-monopolies-not-so-great/index.htm
> 
>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/07/07/intellectual-property-regime-stifles-science-and-innovation-nobel-laureates-say/
> among many many others.
>
> In the case of Open Source, one can claim prior art -- though such a 
> response still extracts a rent on the actual innovators(!)    (01)

At some point, I will need to understand the legal relationship between 
'prior art' and FTF.  It is absolutely necessary that publication of 
prior art is a valid defense.  Otherwise the effect on academic work 
could be catastrophic.     (02)

The remaining question, however, is whether Open Source registration 
constitutes publication.  Many open source projects are somewhere 
between marginally documented and abysmally documented, at least early 
on.  Open source software clearly presents the 'mechanism' in a public 
forum, but it may not so clearly document 'function'.  What if the Open 
Source software doesn't quite work as is for the patented function, but 
is a contributing mechanism -- a part of the solution, even if it is the 
lion's share?  The effect may be to rob the open source software of its 
primary application.    (03)

I expect my son the lawyer to have a fat and busy life.    (04)

-Ed    (05)

>
> I recall the Ontolog IPR series 
> 
>(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion),
> 
> it might be worthwhile to set up a patent monitoring network, and if 
> possible get some legal help to aid in streamlining the challenging of 
> overly broad patent claims, that perhaps through the use of creative 
> language cleverly skirt prior art. 
>
> As far as I can tell (and hopefully an IP lawyer can help clarify), it 
> is cheapest to attack a patent when in application stages. Options for 
> the open source community seem to be to make sure prior art is widely 
> known and develop support networks to help ensure that patents aren't 
> granted that wade into the territory. Alternatively, to actually start 
> building a patent portfolio, but that would require significant funds 
> behind it.
>
> Tools such 
> as: 
>http://www.ambercite.com/our-approach/network-patent-analysis/network-patent-analysis-%28npa%29-201011101.html
> could 
> help make the first option more viable. Of course, all this seems like 
> such a distraction from actual, useful, productive work and you 
> know... innovating.
>
> Ali
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Ron Wheeler 
> <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     On 18/10/2011 2:55 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
>         Dear Peter,
>
>         Agreed re the FTF vs FTI.  The many inventors I
>         know are upset about this new law, and working
>         hard to reverse it, so perhaps that will be
>         changed.  But it will take years.
>
>         The motivation for FTF was that it fits with the
>         international patent treaty (PCT) agreements in
>         force in other countries.  It also wreaks fewer
>         wrinkles in litigation because the facts do not
>         include "intention", which is so hard to prove or
>         disprove, and for which every inventor is
>         convinced he "intended" the invention exactly one
>         year before he filed it.  FTF clears up a lot of
>         those debatable points, but has lots of drawbacks
>         compared to FTI.
>
>         Yet the US has been more prolific in invention
>         than any other country using FTI for 200+ years,
>         and the statistics for countries (e.g. Canada)
>         that have changed from FTI to FTF are not good.
>         This could hamper innovation efforts in many
>         fields.
>
>
>     This will destroy the open source movement.
>
>     Projects will develop a new technology, someone outside the
>     project will see it, patent it and then the open source project
>     will have to remove the code from their project in order to avoid
>     being sued by the patent holder.
>
>     Not sure how Apache is planning to deal with this but it puts all
>     of us that use open source at risk of future legal action.
>     Very stupid idea in spite of its simplicity.
>
>
>     Ron
>
>
>         Sincerely,
>         Rich Cooper
>         EnglishLogicKernel.com
>         Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>         9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>         [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
>         Behalf Of Peter Yim
>         Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:17 AM
>         To: [ontolog-forum]
>         Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent
>         Application
>
>             [AH]  Thoughts?
>
>         [ppy]  while I totally admire the way they have
>         executed it, and am
>         happy for the Apple/Siri folks for finally
>         bringing ontology and
>         semantic technology to the mass market with such
>         fanfare ... I am, at
>         the same time, saddened by the fact that we (in
>         the US) too, are now
>         under a "first to file" patent regime (and that
>         "first to invent" is
>         no longer relevant!)
>
>         Regards. =ppy
>         --
>
>
>         On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ali SH
>         <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:asaegyn%2Bout@xxxxxxxxx>>  wrote:
>
>             A few years ago Adam Cheyer and Tom Gruber were
>
>         kind enough to present an
>
>             overview of Siri on ontolog
>
>         ( http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Conferen
>         ceCall_2010_02_25 ), were
>
>             subsequently bought out by Apple and a few weeks
>
>         ago Apple released Siri as
>
>             that "one more thing" part of their
>
>         presentations - deeply integrating it
>
>             into the iPhone4S and their new iOS'es. Some
>
>         claim it is a break out point
>
>             for mass acceptance of AI technologies, and its
>
>         cultural / technological
>
>             consequences are on par with the mouse or GUI's.
>             Regardless, I thought people here might be
>
>         interested in their patent
>
>             application, which is reviewed on this site:
>
>         http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/10/12/how-siri-on-
>         iphone-4s-works-and-why-it%E2%80%99s-a-big-deal-ap
>         ple%E2%80%99s-ai-tech-details-in-230-pages-of-pate
>         nt-app/
>
>             while this one looks at the surrounding patent
>
>         protections Siri and Apple
>
>             (and I suppose SRI) may have built around the
>
>         technologies
>         ( http://startupsip.com/2011/10/14/is-apple-siri-o
>         us-about-ip/ ). The claims
>
>             on the '790 patent are incredibly broad
>
>                 An automated assistant operating on a computing
>
>         device, the assistant
>
>                 comprising:
>
>                 an input device, for receiving user input;
>                 a language interpreter component, for
>
>         interpreting the received user input
>
>                 to derive a representation of user intent;
>                 a dialog flow processor component, for
>
>         identifying at least one domain, at
>
>                 least one task, and at least one parameter for
>
>         the task, based at least in
>
>                 part on the derived representation of user
>
>         intent;
>
>                 a services orchestration component, for calling
>
>         at least one service for
>
>                 performing the identified task;
>                 an output processor component, for rendering
>
>         output based on data received
>
>                 from the at least one called service, and
>
>         further based at least in part on
>
>                 a current output mode; and
>                 an output device, for outputting the rendered
>
>         output.
>
>             Fwiw, I believe that Leonid Kravets has
>
>         misunderstood the "language
>
>             interpreter" claim, and I doubt Apple is
>
>         referring to Nuance, but the
>
>             NLP/ontology interpretation that Siri is doing
>
>         w/ the Nuance speech-to-text
>
>             strings...
>             There's recently been another, much narrower
>
>         patent application to do with
>
>             ontologies and NLP, titled "Method and system
>
>         for generating an ontology"
>         see: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sec
>         t1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPT
>         O%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,027,948.PN.&OS=P
>         N/8,027,948&RS=PN/8,027,948 for
>
>             more details.
>             Thoughts?
>
>             (`'.(`'.().').') .,.,
>
>
>         __________________________________________________
>         _______________
>         Message Archives:
>         http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>         Config Subscr:
>         http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>         orum/
>         Unsubscribe:
>         mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>         Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>         Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>         To join:
>         http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
>         ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>         _________________________________________________________________
>         Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>         Config Subscr:
>         http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>         Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>         Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>         Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>         To join:
>         http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Ron Wheeler
>     President
>     Artifact Software Inc
>     email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     skype: ronaldmwheeler
>     phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________________________
>     Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>     Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>     Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>     Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>     To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>      
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> .
> (`'.(`'.().').') .,.,
>    (06)

-- 
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                Cel: +1 240-672-5800    (07)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, 
 and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (08)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (09)

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