2nd Wonderful Post In this Thread Since Yesterday. (01)
I really appreciate being able to read this mailing list. (02)
Matthew M. Kaufman
503-881-6906 (03)
Sent from my iPhone (04)
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> 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
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|