Dear Jim, (01)
That is right, AFAIK; it must not have been
previously published and must be novel, though it
now must only be novel with respect to filing, not
to inventing the material. The need to
demonstrate that the material was first invented
by the filing person is no longer there, just the
need for prior art not to be published. (02)
So Joe could come up with an invention, Mary could
file a patent on it before Joe, and if there was
no prior material describing the invention, then
Mary gets the patent even though Joe did the
actual inventing. That is the issue at stake in
FTI/FTF. (03)
The reason this is a problem for small inventors
is that they are not, by and large, well funded.
Therefore the calendar time it takes them to come
up with a patent document filing is way longer
than for large research labs, like the old Bell
Labs was, which have many people to work on it and
which have comparatively large budgets. (04)
Another issue is that the large IP holders can
dredge up all kinds of cheapo patents - nothing
earthshaking, but anything that is novel enough to
pass the PTO admission processes. (05)
But the big labs have huge resources to turn out
lots of unspectacular stuff - the kind of patents
that clog the legal system but protect the big IP
holders because they have the resources to counter
sue any inventor litigating one patent against
them. (06)
The countersuits can be unlimited, and big IP
holders can counter sue with lots of patents, even
if the counter suit patents aren’t very good.
They still require large legal fees to defend.
That beats down the smaller inventor time after
time without her getting a proper venue for the
work and investment she put in. (07)
So I think Ed's lawyer offspring will do very well
if he/she is going into IP law practice. (08)
-Rich (09)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Rhyne
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:51 PM
To: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
'[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent
Application (011)
AFAIK, the requirement for originality in a patent
issuance still stands
even with the switch to FTF. You should not be
able to patent something that
is already open source.
Jim (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:13 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent
Application (013)
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. (014)
This will destroy the open source movement. (015)
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. (016)
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. (017)
Ron (018)
> 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]
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> 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
> 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-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
> (019)
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (020)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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
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 (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
|