[Corpora-List] Patent application for "Referent tracking of portions of reality"

[Laurence Anthony]

Hi again,

This discussion of patents is an important discussion that more of us
in the world of corpus linguistics (which in some way is part of
software engineering) should be concerned about.

> I would like to reiterate the point of my previous note:  the so-called
> "inventors" have been patenting methods that were in the public domain
> for years.  Publication is the most effective way to protect oneself
> (and the whole community) against lawsuits.
>
> But if patents of public domain methods are granted (as they have
> been in one of the patents, and as the inventors threaten to do
> in the other patent application), then anybody who uses those
> public domain methods is in danger of being sued.

I still think the comment "anybody who uses those public domain
methods is in danger of being sued." is a little too strong. Are there
any patent lawyers in the discussion list that can give a more
definitive answer about the potential risks here?

>
> JFS:
>>>
>>> But you can change the names of all the variables and rewrite all
>>> the comments in a program, and every variation will compute exactly
>>> the same results.  If somebody is granted a software patent, they
>>> can threaten to sue anybody who uses an algorithm that is provably
>>> equivalent.
>
> LA:
>>
>> This is not correct, at least in Japan where I have successfully
>> applied for and received two patents (except possibly the last line).
>
> Both sentences are true.  If you relabel all the names, you still
> have exactly the same algorithm.
>

I may have misunderstood your  original statement, but it seemed that
the implication was that a case could be made against someone
producing the same *results*. I would still say that this is
incorrect. However, I think you and I agree that a case can be made
against software that uses an identical *algorithm*.

> LA:
>>
>> This also seems incorrect, in Japan at least. If you publish something
>> (in a journal for example), it automatically becomes public domain.
>JFS:
> By "protection", I meant protection against being sued.  I have been
> publishing books and papers about conceptual graphs for 34 years, and
> I would prefer not to be sued for using those methods.
>LA:
>> If someone does manage to get a patent on their software, we still
>> have nothing to worry about because we are using and developing
>> software based on much earlier public-domain ideas.
JFS:
> There is something to worry about:  the patent may be unenforceable
> if carefully examined in court.  But the people who hold the patent
> can still threaten to sue, and defending against such a lawsuit can
> be very expensive.

I see what your argument is now. You are worried that some patent
holder could sue someone else (even if/when they have no chance of
winning). And, that person would then have the grief of trying to
defend their perfectly legal methods/tools in an expensive court case.

So, coming back to an earlier comment, you are worried that the day
might come when Mike Scott could get sued for developing WordSmith
Tools, because some person has got a patent on this public domain
idea. It's becoming a very sad world when we have to think about this
kind of problem, isn't it?!

I think this might be a greater concern for those who live in the
states, where it is more common to sue people (at least that's what we
hear). Here in Japan, such cases very, very rarely get to court. In
the end, I think it's incredibly difficult to defend ourselves against
trouble of this sort. And, an escalation in protective measures just
leads to an increasingly worse situation.

So, assuming you think this is a serious problem, what would you say
the corpus community should do from now?

Laurence.

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora