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

Thu Sep 2 17:28:35 UTC 2010

Adam

Perhaps I assumed too much about what people know. I specifically tried to
comment on the ways that the patent system shapes the behaviour of companies
and patent offices.

Stallman is good and insightful, and correctly points out that the system
but does let his rhetoric get out of hand sometimes

e.g his transcript  (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html)
says:
============================================

On one extreme we have pharmaceuticals where a given chemical formula would
be patented, so that patent covers one and only one product. Some other
product wouldn't be covered by the existing patent. If there is to be a
patent for this new product, the patent holder would be whoever developed
the new product.

=======================================

Which I think is too kind to the pharmaceutical industry. I examined exactly
such pharmaceutical patents in the 1980s.  The pharmaceutical patent is
likely to cover a range of "related" compounds covered by a schematic
chemical formula. I'm not saying that there is the same scope for over-broad
claims as there is in the case of software, but there definitely is some
degree of broadening beyond the concrete examples. And I think this happens
for the same
reasons as in the case of software. "related" is a slightly slippery
concept.

Pharmaceutical research is costly, because you need to demonstrate serious
potential for therapeutic effectiveness,  and one of the consequences of
that is that the large firms dominate even more than in other fields.
Mercifully, this makes the so-called "patent trolls" (firms with no purpose
other than to hold patents and coerce license fees out of the truly
productive firms). In that sense, Stallman's intuition that pharma patents
are less dodgy than software ones is probably broadly correct.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Adam Kilgarriff <adam at lexmasterclass.com>wrote:

> 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 -
>
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
>
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html>Or a video version
>
>
> <http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D669200964006594520&sa=X&ei=DbN-TPr6KYqQjAfFzpjzCg&ved=0CCoQuAIwAw&usg=AFQjCNEjBjcTxL4e7EEKXslyFN_TvSRoGw>
> *Richard* M *Stallman*: The Danger of Software *Patents*<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=669200964006594520>
>
> Do read, as part of a general education about the area we work in
>
> Adam
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html>
>
> On 1 September 2010 18:57, Mike Scott <mike at lexically.net> wrote:
>
>>  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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers -- Mike
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2010 17:43, Laurence Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Scott
>>
>> ***
>> If you publish research which uses WordSmith, do let me know so I can
>> include it at
>>
>> http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/papers_using_wordsmith.htm
>> ***
>>
>> Aston University and Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.
>> Room NX01
>> Aston University
>> Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET
>> 0121 204 3809
>>
>> www.lexically.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Corpora mailing list
>> Corpora at uib.no
>> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> Adam Kilgarriff
> http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk
> Lexical Computing Ltd                   http://www.sketchengine.co.uk
> Lexicography MasterClass Ltd      http://www.lexmasterclass.com
> Universities of Leeds and Sussex       adam at lexmasterclass.com
> ================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
>
>

-- 
Chris Brew, Ohio State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20100902/edb929ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora