Published material is defined, for patent
purposes, as anything in the public marketplace which can be interpreted by a
Posita (Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art) adequately to practice the
invention. So if it is behind a firewall and not for sale, it is not in the
public marketplace. But if it is in a scientific journal, in the IEEE, or even
in Popular Science adequately described for a Posita, then it qualifies as
published material for invalidating patents.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali SH
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent Application
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I expect my son the lawyer to have a fat and busy life.
Not necessarily - http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job_5.single.html
Just a while longer before legal ontologies and ML get good enough to
complete the commodification (commoditization?) of this sector of the
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.
What is the status of a blog post? Or a google group for that matter?
Do they constitute published material?
What if it is behind a paywall, or at least requires a login? I'm not really
sure what counts either as adequate published material.
And seriously -- a digital assistant that is able to take input from
some device, interpret it, connect it to an ontology and then orchestrate
services over a network and send the results to an output device is a novel
discovery? Siri's a great application that demonstrates how one can
successfully deploy and commercialize various AI technologies, but the claims
in this application are incredibly broad.