Matt, On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Steve Richfield > > I don't understand. What is the problem multiplying by a really large > number in floating point? > > There isn't. I just did it the way your patent application suggested > to show that the distribution is not uniform if you include the high > bits of the hash.. > Yea, the top few bits of the mantissa aren't uniform - one of the many costs of being quick and dirty. Otherwise, the collision odds would be better than one-in-a-million. However, extracting a hashed chunk out of the middle of mantissa to use as the pointer to the hash table that points to the lexicon should be pretty uniform, which is what really counts for good performance. > > But I'm not sure what you are trying to patent. The floating point > hash probably has prior art so it is not patentable by itself. I looked but didn't find any. > If it > is one step in a longer process, then anyone could work around it by > substituting an integer hash, which is technically superior anyway. Its ONLY use is in two isolated dependent claims, the loss of which wouldn't affect much of anything, especially since there are a couple of super-broad independent claims that are at a higher level than details of hashing. If > your claim is not specific about the type of hash function, then I > don't see what you are patenting because nothing else is specified in > enough detail to be considered a disclosure. We'll see. Right now, there is not much of anything now patented in the area of parsing text that is not related to speech recognition. According to the present body of filed patents, "natural language" is about speech, and "text processing" is about text editors. I find this situation to be completely unexpected. Hence, prior art would have to come from things like textbooks, and I figured that if there were anything out there, I probably would have heard about it at a WORLDCOMP AI conference that I attend each year. I understand the idea is > to search the web and do unspecified processing of the text in order > to mine personal data and send targeted ads, but people are already > doing that. > Not variable/customized ads, just fixed ads selected on the basis of word occurrence, and NOT on the basis of word relationships. Besides... 1. Ads are just one of the three paths between this and the Internet. 2. You can't patent a desired result, so other patents couldn't claim the area you stated, but could only claim a WAY of achieving that result. Right now I seem to have the only way. Time will tell what other methods emerge. > > One problem I see in the application is a lack of references. Your > invention has to be novel and not obvious. The reason for citing > related work (such as other patents) is to show that at least you made > a feeble attempt to see if it's been done before. > Take your own look at USPTO.gov. There really isn't anything to reference!!! This is a first for me, as I often search prior art at USPTO.gov as the first step of most designs I do. Most patents have expired, and the ones that haven't have LOTS of good information in their disclosures about related topics, that I often find useful. Here, the deafening silence sort of makes you want to check your Internet connection. Hint: This area of technology is now WIDE OPEN. If you know something that no one else seems to know about parsing,* patent it now.* They just cut the cost of patents in half (while also reducing their value), so it won't cost much to claim your territory. Logan, are you paying attention here? > > > To cover our butts (since the entire patent system changed 4 days ago, > and the old rules are MUCH better than the new rules) there are LOTS of > claims to amend. As filed, it has 5 independent claims and 30 total claims. > > My understanding is the rule was changed from "first to invent" to > "first to file", in order to be consistent with the rest of the world. > The U.S. still differs in that you have 1 year after public disclosure > to file. In the rest of the world, there is no such grace period. > Also, most of the rest of the world either refuses to patent software, or is very unfriendly to software, e.g. only when it is embedded in some sort of special machine. However, a non-US company reaching into the U.S. via the Internet becomes subject to U.S. patents for any technology used in connection with reaching into the U.S., so insofar as Internet software goes, the whole game is now in U.S. patents, or so says Craig my attorney. 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
