Anastasios, I am tempted to forward this to Craig, my patent attorney, but I'll first try to address your issues.
One BIG point that might have escaped your notice - this is ONLY patented in the U.S., so outside of the U.S. you are not only free to use it, I encourage you to use it!!! However, if your business crosses the U.S. border AND makes enough money in the U.S.to be worth going after, then we will have to discuss royalties. The "problem" is that this sort of stuff is really only patentable in the U.S. for various complex reasons. Continuing... On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis < [email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Heidenbugs >>> >> > Well gentlemen, I am very nearly shocked by this patent and the discussion > it is generating. I can see how it fits in Steve's universe, after all it > is not his first patent, but I can hardly see anything else. Presumably the > patent "team" has faith in the utility and patentability of the idea, while > I lack both. In terms of patentability, I can see that one can and should > insert a lot of "patentese" into an algorithm to make it patentable, for > example other parsing patents list "method and apparatus", because as "we" > know, no apparatus means no patent. > Not true. Most crypto patents don't reference apparatus. There is much here in common with crypto, e.g. hashing the input. > Now, I am not a patent lawyer but it seems to me that you expect me to pay > if I generate text, with a marketing message or otherwise, by > keyword-matching and a certain hashing function and rule workflow, but a > hell of a lot depends on me creating brilliant rules. > True. > What if I tried to patent "method and apparatus for harvesting free > energy" and basically provided a battery, two cables and a blank in the > middle where any and all free energy devices would plug in, if and when > they were developed and sold. > That would probably be rejected on account of being obvious. I know a patent agent in Sunnyvale CA who obtained a patent for a common wheelbarrow - a class 2 lever with a wheel at one end and an open container in the middle, with obscure diagrams that don't look anything at all like a wheelbarrow. You can patent ANYTHING if you define it in sufficiently obscure terms. Would that be a brilliant way to put a patent tax on free energy so-called > research and development? > You might be able to sell the IP, but you could never win in court. > If someone tried to circumvent my patent by including 4 cables, two > batteries and hydraulic energy storage, would I be able to claim they > essentially violate my patent? > It depends on your boilerplate at the end of your specification. You might take a look at the boilerplate at the end of my specification as an example. > > The abstract of the claims differs from your posting here, partly for > obvious and understandable reasons. Here you show a bigger picture, which I > just don't see. The speed advantage of whatever you are proposing seems > debatable, especially with rules being the slower part. > The gain in speed is huge but subtle, but you don't sound inclined to understand the subtlety. > Avoiding Heidenbugs would be worth a few major patents on its own but I > don't think you have proof or will ever have proof you avoid Heidenbugs > with this workflow, I can see keyword-rules as heidenbuggy as hell emerging. > There is NO mention of heidenbugs in the patent. I just mentioned them as a reason for code to have all possible checking enabled, which seemed to be no-brainer to me, but Matt didn't seem to be on board with this yet, at least not when I was responding to his posting. Ordering the lexicon according to word frequency has been done for ever > Do you have references for this? > and seems to weaken the patent - if I use a similar workflow and change > some minute things in your patent I expect to go scot-free. > Not true in the U.S., as U.S. courts extend protection beyond the precise narrow words used in claims. > Not to mention that "the" is *the* word is certain situations and > word-frequency orderings probably are too weak for linguistic nuances. > The ONLY reason for the ordered word list is to increase speed. Random order wouldn't break anything, but it would run a LOT slower. > You do mention the word disambiguation, now disambiguation is the alpha > and omega of NLP, if we could map words to an ontology unambiguously we > would be on cloud seven, sadly I don't see one bit of disambiguation > "infrastructure" in your proposal. > This is pretty well studied elsewhere, e.g. counting words in various subject domains to determine the presently active domain(s). Again, I am patent the structure, not the contents, a little like patenting a chest of drawers, and NOT what goes into the drawers. > > In short, I don't see more potential in this patent than patent-trolling > advertisers! > The above statement doesn't parse as English, e.g. comparing potential to advertisers. Perhaps you could restate this. > > PS What would you market to someone who used heidenbuggy twice! > Perhaps heidenhorses to pull it 8-:D> Steve ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
