Re: [ontolog-forum] Genetic discovery using ontology mapping of observat

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear John,

You wrote:

Rich,

Both of those so-called patents are examples of the kind of garbage that the overworked and undereducated patent examiners allow to slip through the cracks in a very broken system.

They are totally devoid of any kind of innovation other than pasting the label 'ontology' on the output of algorithms were developed in AI in the 1950s and '60s.

My recommendation for anyone who wants to do anything similar is to avoid the term 'ontology'.  Just call it AI and cite some of the AI literature from 40+ years ago.

John

Actually, that is what patents are about.  Nobody wants to use AI algorithms for research purposes in patents; patents are intended to be practical teachings which are innovative in the sense that they are useful in solving a known problem for a known purpose for commercial gain.  Patents have nothing to do with research, but with practical realization of useful technologies that create wealth, jobs, and profitable activities. 

For example, if the AI algorithms of the 50's and 60's were submitted as patent applications, they would be thrown out by the patent examiners.  Those same patent examiners probably had already studied the AI algorithms in college before they became examiners.  So they already know the AI algorithms just like they know college chemistry, mechanics and electronics if those are the technologies they majored in. 

It is unacceptable under patent law to patent an abstraction, such as the 50's and 60's algorithms.  It is unacceptable to patent math, or to patent pure conceptualizations, or any other idea that does not have some useful (i.e. commercial) purpose.  This is a major and well known distinction that has been upheld by the Supreme Court many times, and is used as a precedent by the patent examiners. 

AI algorithms are published in academic journals by AI researchers who are actually charged by the journals - the researchers have to pay for the publications of their works precisely because there is no obvious commercial purpose of those research papers and works.  They are only useful to other theorists. 

Patents, on the other hand, describe commercially useful technologies, and they provide a short term monopoly contract between the inventor and the patent office that can be used to either halt competition from using the same techniques for a limited period (about 17 years normally) or to collect royalty payments from competitors that use the said inventions.  They are useful for the precise reason that the inventions patented have commercially useful value, and which provide leverage to inventors who want to make their patented inventions available in the form of products or services by themselves or by licensees.

Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin?  Probably not, because nobody else knows how either.  That is because Mr. Stradivarius lived in a time when there were no protections on knowledge that would help him protect his technology for making violins.  So he didn't record his methods and systems.  As a result, that knowledge died with Mr. S.  When the U.S. constitution was drafted (by lawyers), they decided to offer patents and copyrights because prior British history had shown that offering such inducements to inventors had resulted in a great deal of progress compared to the lack of said protection for Mr. S.  That is the one and only reason why we have a patent system.  And that patent system has brought American society more valuable technologies than we would have had without it. 

In short, if you want to create abstract ideas, you have to pay to publish them so others can be influenced by them.  But if you want to create commercially useful combinations of already known ideas, plus some new usage or new combination, you can patent them and create wealth through their application so that other people pay you for their use of your intellectual property. 

I think your view of what the patent office does is conflated with your view of what pure research is about.  They have little to do with each other. 

-Rich

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 John F Sowa
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:09 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Genetic discovery using ontology mappingofobservations

Rich,

Both of those so-called patents are examples of the kind of garbage

that the overworked and undereducated patent examiners allow to slip

through the cracks in a very broken system.

They are totally devoid of any kind of innovation other than pasting

the label 'ontology' on the output of algorithms were developed in AI

in the 1950s and '60s.

My recommendation for anyone who wants to do anything similar is

to avoid the term 'ontology'.  Just call it AI and cite some of

the AI literature from 40+ years ago.

John

 

_________________________________________________________________

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)