<div>It seems like this thread is proceeding in ignorance of the horrors of software patents. Leading authority is Richard Stallman, founder of Gnu and main author of the GPL. I heard him talk years ago and it made a deep impression. See a lecture transcript here -</div>
<div><br></div><a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html</a><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html"></a>Or a video version <br>
<div><br></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 15px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><table class="ts" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: auto; ">
<tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="padding-top: 7px; padding-right: 8px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D669200964006594520&sa=X&ei=DbN-TPr6KYqQjAfFzpjzCg&ved=0CCoQuAIwAw&usg=AFQjCNEjBjcTxL4e7EEKXslyFN_TvSRoGw" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 204); cursor: pointer; "><div style="margin-top: -23px; margin-right: 4px; text-align: right; ">
<img src="http://www.google.co.uk/images/icons/sectionized_ui/play_c.gif" alt="" border="0" height="20" width="20" style="opacity: 0.88; "></div></a></td><td valign="top" style="padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=669200964006594520" class="l" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 204); cursor: pointer; "><em style="font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; ">Richard</em> M <em style="font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; ">Stallman</em>: The Danger of Software <em style="font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; ">Patents</em></a></td>
</tr></tbody></table></span><div><br></div><div>Do read, as part of a general education about the area we work in</div><div><br></div><div>Adam</div><div><a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html"></a><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 September 2010 18:57, Mike Scott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@lexically.net">mike@lexically.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
WordSmith Tools has been referred to a couple of times. Speaking for myself I do not think I have created anything which I could imagine myself (ethically) attempting to patent. The kinds of commonly-processed lists such as concordances, key word plots etc. WordSmith creates are open to anyone to reproduce -- AntConc and WMatrix have both done so, with my expressed enthusiasm behind them -- and I didn't invent the idea of a concordance or key words either, just implemented them.<br>
<br>
I do agree there is always a danger of somebody causing a painful and expensive nuisance in the ways discussed, however. There is also some danger of getting food poisoning or having a motorbike crash but I still ride a bike and eat.<br>
<br>
Cheers -- Mike<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 01/09/2010 17:43, Laurence Anthony wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi again,<br>
<br>
This discussion of patents is an important discussion that more of us<br>
in the world of corpus linguistics (which in some way is part of<br>
software engineering) should be concerned about.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I would like to reiterate the point of my previous note: the so-called<br>
"inventors" have been patenting methods that were in the public domain<br>
for years. Publication is the most effective way to protect oneself<br>
(and the whole community) against lawsuits.<br>
<br>
But if patents of public domain methods are granted (as they have<br>
been in one of the patents, and as the inventors threaten to do<br>
in the other patent application), then anybody who uses those<br>
public domain methods is in danger of being sued.<br>
</blockquote>
I still think the comment "anybody who uses those public domain<br>
methods is in danger of being sued." is a little too strong. Are there<br>
any patent lawyers in the discussion list that can give a more<br>
definitive answer about the potential risks here?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
JFS:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But you can change the names of all the variables and rewrite all<br>
the comments in a program, and every variation will compute exactly<br>
the same results. If somebody is granted a software patent, they<br>
can threaten to sue anybody who uses an algorithm that is provably<br>
equivalent.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
LA:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is not correct, at least in Japan where I have successfully<br>
applied for and received two patents (except possibly the last line).<br>
</blockquote>
Both sentences are true. If you relabel all the names, you still<br>
have exactly the same algorithm.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I may have misunderstood your original statement, but it seemed that<br>
the implication was that a case could be made against someone<br>
producing the same *results*. I would still say that this is<br>
incorrect. However, I think you and I agree that a case can be made<br>
against software that uses an identical *algorithm*.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
LA:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This also seems incorrect, in Japan at least. If you publish something<br>
(in a journal for example), it automatically becomes public domain.<br>
</blockquote>
JFS:<br>
By "protection", I meant protection against being sued. I have been<br>
publishing books and papers about conceptual graphs for 34 years, and<br>
I would prefer not to be sued for using those methods.<br>
LA:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If someone does manage to get a patent on their software, we still<br>
have nothing to worry about because we are using and developing<br>
software based on much earlier public-domain ideas.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
JFS:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There is something to worry about: the patent may be unenforceable<br>
if carefully examined in court. But the people who hold the patent<br>
can still threaten to sue, and defending against such a lawsuit can<br>
be very expensive.<br>
</blockquote>
I see what your argument is now. You are worried that some patent<br>
holder could sue someone else (even if/when they have no chance of<br>
winning). And, that person would then have the grief of trying to<br>
defend their perfectly legal methods/tools in an expensive court case.<br>
<br>
So, coming back to an earlier comment, you are worried that the day<br>
might come when Mike Scott could get sued for developing WordSmith<br>
Tools, because some person has got a patent on this public domain<br>
idea. It's becoming a very sad world when we have to think about this<br>
kind of problem, isn't it?!<br>
<br>
I think this might be a greater concern for those who live in the<br>
states, where it is more common to sue people (at least that's what we<br>
hear). Here in Japan, such cases very, very rarely get to court. In<br>
the end, I think it's incredibly difficult to defend ourselves against<br>
trouble of this sort. And, an escalation in protective measures just<br>
leads to an increasingly worse situation.<br>
<br>
So, assuming you think this is a serious problem, what would you say<br>
the corpus community should do from now?<br>
<br>
Laurence.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Corpora mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no" target="_blank">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
-- <br>
Mike Scott<br>
<br>
***<br>
If you publish research which uses WordSmith, do let me know so I can include it at<br>
<a href="http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/papers_using_wordsmith.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/papers_using_wordsmith.htm</a><br>
***<br>
<br>
Aston University and Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.<br>
Room NX01<br>
Aston University<br>
Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET<br>
0121 204 3809<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.lexically.net" target="_blank">www.lexically.net</a><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Corpora mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no" target="_blank">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>================================================<br>Adam Kilgarriff <a href="http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk">http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk</a> <br>
Lexical Computing Ltd <a href="http://www.sketchengine.co.uk">http://www.sketchengine.co.uk</a><br>Lexicography MasterClass Ltd <a href="http://www.lexmasterclass.com">http://www.lexmasterclass.com</a><br>
Universities of Leeds and Sussex <a href="mailto:adam@lexmasterclass.com">adam@lexmasterclass.com</a><br>================================================<br>
</div></div>