Kristof Van Tomme wrote:
> If you are in this field and you might be doing things that infringe
> on this patent, I would advise you to not read any of this or at least
> not comment on it, unless you have the money and reason to dispute the
> validity of these patents. In the other case, if you ever get
> prosecuted it will save you a lot of money if you didn't know about
> the exact claims that have been granted.
> (01)
I would be surprised to find that this advice is supported by
experience. In most engineering activities, the engineer or his/her
staff is expected to do a patent search before committing a design to
production. The purpose of the search is to protect the company from
potential patent infringement claims after committing significant monies
to production and marketing. The whole idea is that one can determine
whether the central features of the design are patented by others, thus
negating all value in the design, and whether there are 'touching
patents' whose potential claims can be avoided by making minor
modifications to the design. In patent infringement cases, ignorance of
prior patent is /not/ a defense, unless the domain and function of the
patent was described in terminology that was not readily recognizeable
as the same as the domain and function of the claimed infringement.
(This latter is more of an international patent issue, in that it arises
from language translations and inconsistencies in terminology across
national boundaries, notably British terminology vs. American
terminology. But it also arises across specialized discipline areas,
like pharmaceuticals vs. chemical agricultural products.) Standard
practice is to do the patent search. If you didn't do the patent
search, you are liable. You can only be excused if a reasonable search
might not have identified the patent as relevant, and even that doesn't
free you from future liability. (That is why they send 'cease and
desist' letters -- if you were ignorant, now you aren't.) (02)
I repeat what is becoming a mantra: Knowledge engineering and software
engineering are engineering disciplines, and they are finally becoming
exposed to the expected behaviors in good engineering practice. (03)
-Ed (04)
--
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 (05)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (06)
> cheers,
> Kristof
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkfmncom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Wonderful Post on IP and the Startups.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 7:30 PM, "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************
>
> ir. Kristof Van Tomme
> CEO
> Skype: kvantomme
> http://twitter.com/kvantomme
> http://be.linkedin.com/in/kvantomme
>
> PRONOVIX
> 9940 Sleidinge, Akkerken 6, Belgium
> 6721 Szeged, Vidra utca 1B, Hungary
> Web: www.pronovix.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|