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

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ali,

 

Patents were not created to help professors write papers or to help journalists write articles.  Jefferson created the patent system in response to the custom of the times where an apprentice would be working for a master craftsman who would share his knowledge about a trade with the apprentice, but would retain the rights to the product or service he produces. 

 

I wouldn’t ask a banker what semantic methodology works best for what problem specification; I would ask a semantic engineer.  By the same token, I wouldn’t expect lawyers, even IP lawyers, to understand the business model of innovative companies.  So why would those articles (quoted below) shed any light on the problems of bringing new fundamental technology to market?  They are all written by law school profs and journalists! 

 

Ask startup founders if you want the perspective that does the work.  Ask advisors if you want details to help you with the peripheral issues.  Ask the people who do the actual work for the reasons they work, for the constraints they perceive, and for the best way to improve technology with the smallest amount of resources. 

 

JMHO,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:31 PM
To: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Siri's (Apple) Patent Application

 

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(!) 

 

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> 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] 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-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

 

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102



_________________________________________________________________
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
 

 

--

.

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)