Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
At 09:50 PM 3/7/01 +, Warren Sarle wrote: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paige Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > > else uses it, especially a competitor. > >That would be perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, patent law >doesn't work that way. You cannot patent an algorithm per se. >But anybody can patent applications of the algorithm that you >invented. You could end up having to pay royalties to somebody >else for using your own algorithm. The law is insane. like the biotech patents of genes ... that was highlighted on 60 minutes a week or two ago = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donald Burrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In response to dennis roberts, who wrote in part: >> > i see "inventing" some algorithm asnot quite in the same >> > genre of developing a process for extracting some enzyme from a >> > substance ... using a particular piece of equipment specially >> > developed for that purpose >> > i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... >On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Paige Miller replied: >> If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I >> invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in >> making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one >> else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my >> employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical >> inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other >> inventions. >Yes. And in another domain of discourse, statistical methods invented >by statisticians like Abraham Wald, who worked on military problems >during WWII, were military secrets until the war ended. > "Official secret" is the governmental/military equivalent of "patent". No, it is the equivalent of "trade secret". The word "patent" literal means "open"; a patent is the right to exclusive use, or licensing, granted in exchange for removing any secrecy. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
Warren Sarle wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paige Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > > else uses it, especially a competitor. > > That would be perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, patent law > doesn't work that way. You cannot patent an algorithm per se. > But anybody can patent applications of the algorithm that you > invented. You could end up having to pay royalties to somebody > else for using your own algorithm. The law is insane. It doesn't make sense to me either, but that is exactly what we have done. We have patented a mathematical procedure as applied to chemical manufacturing. If someone else wanted to patent the exact same mathematical procedure as applied to veterinary care, I suppose they could. -- Paige Miller Eastman Kodak Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's nothing until I call it!" -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire "Those black-eyed peas tasted all right to me" -- Dixie Chicks = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
In order to obtain a patent whether it be a mechanical device or an algorithm, it has to be described in detail and is available for anyone's perusal. There's nothing to prevent someone from studying the algorithm and determining what are the essential characteristics. Then programming something similar, perhaps making some effort at disguising it. How will the orginal patent holder know whether his algorithm is being used? Moreover how will he prove that infingement occurred? The "copier" need not reveal his software code. I would would think that someone who developed an algorithm would be better served obtaining a trade-mark and agressively marketing his new invention. Without ever revealing the algorithm. Jay Warner wrote: > > Hi, Paige, > > I am also confident that your employer, Kodak, saw too it that you have > an agreement with them, to the effect that what comes out of your head > is theirs. I've signed a few of these, too. Received $1.00 for one :) > I think they got their money's worth. > > Without conferring with a legal beagle (whose time is worth > considerable...), I'd hazard a guess that mathematical principles, and > perhaps the concepts of the algorithm, are universal and not > patentable. The code to execute a principle/algorithm, however, can and > is patented or otherwise withheld. > > I recall some years ago, when an expert on linear programming methods > explained how a new analytic procedure for solutions was held back as a > trade secret. At a conference workshop, the inventor of it would walk > around the room as people worked on a problem, giving them encouragement > by saying, 'your closer,' and 'that didn't work for me.' but he would > not reveal how to do it, only a deep background type of confirmation. > He was specifically enjoined from telling, it seems. > > Was this a free and open intellectual discussion? No way. Did it hold > back progress & insight. Yup. On the other hand, did this person's > employer pay a sizable salary to have him sitting around working it > out? Yes, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely that the technique would > have been discovered/invented. Patents run out, too. > > In the aluminum industry there are many patents around. The holders > waste no time in cross licensing, at an agreed upon rate (usually > pennies per pound produced). It is standard procedure. the key is > whether the product of the invention is easily traceable. If I can buy > a piece of aluminum and tell immediately that it was made using my > patented process, then I can go after the makers for my piece. > > Can the results of patented software be traced in the same manner? > Maybe not, but the code can be. Especially if it is provided in > compiled form. but the software industry has a long history of flat out > rip-offs. "What's in code is mine, and only big evil companies would > take money for what I want." A very adolescent attitude, perhaps, but > also not a good attitude on which to found cross licensing of patents. > > So I don't think that patenting of software will make others' software > worse, or cumbersomely unusable. I think unwillingness to work out > cross licensing agreements, and stick to them, may cause greater problems. > > Jay > > Paige Miller wrote: > > > dennis roberts wrote: > > > >> just think about all the software packages ... and what they would HAVE (or > >> HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ... > >> > >> sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly creative act and > >> usually, if it is of value, the person(s) developing it will gain fame (ha > >> ha) and some pr ... but, not quite in the same genre of developing a > >> process for extracting some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular > >> piece of equipment specially developed for that purpose > >> > >> i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... > > > > > > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > > else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my > > employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical > > inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other > > inventions. > > > > -- > Jay Warner > Principal Scientist > Warner Consulting, Inc. > North Green Bay Road > Racine, WI 53404-1216 > USA > > Ph: (262) 634-9100 > FAX:(262) 681-1133 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web:http://www.a2q.com > > The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today? > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = ==
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paige Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > else uses it, especially a competitor. That would be perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, patent law doesn't work that way. You cannot patent an algorithm per se. But anybody can patent applications of the algorithm that you invented. You could end up having to pay royalties to somebody else for using your own algorithm. The law is insane. -- Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here [EMAIL PROTECTED]SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily (919) 677-8000Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute. = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
Hi, Paige, I am also confident that your employer, Kodak, saw too it that you have an agreement with them, to the effect that what comes out of your head is theirs. I've signed a few of these, too. Received $1.00 for one :) I think they got their money's worth. Without conferring with a legal beagle (whose time is worth considerable...), I'd hazard a guess that mathematical principles, and perhaps the concepts of the algorithm, are universal and not patentable. The code to execute a principle/algorithm, however, can and is patented or otherwise withheld. I recall some years ago, when an expert on linear programming methods explained how a new analytic procedure for solutions was held back as a trade secret. At a conference workshop, the inventor of it would walk around the room as people worked on a problem, giving them encouragement by saying, 'your closer,' and 'that didn't work for me.' but he would not reveal how to do it, only a deep background type of confirmation. He was specifically enjoined from telling, it seems. Was this a free and open intellectual discussion? No way. Did it hold back progress & insight. Yup. On the other hand, did this person's employer pay a sizable salary to have him sitting around working it out? Yes, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely that the technique would have been discovered/invented. Patents run out, too. In the aluminum industry there are many patents around. The holders waste no time in cross licensing, at an agreed upon rate (usually pennies per pound produced). It is standard procedure. the key is whether the product of the invention is easily traceable. If I can buy a piece of aluminum and tell immediately that it was made using my patented process, then I can go after the makers for my piece. Can the results of patented software be traced in the same manner? Maybe not, but the code can be. Especially if it is provided in compiled form. but the software industry has a long history of flat out rip-offs. "What's in code is mine, and only big evil companies would take money for what I want." A very adolescent attitude, perhaps, but also not a good attitude on which to found cross licensing of patents. So I don't think that patenting of software will make others' software worse, or cumbersomely unusable. I think unwillingness to work out cross licensing agreements, and stick to them, may cause greater problems. Jay Paige Miller wrote: > dennis roberts wrote: > >> just think about all the software packages ... and what they would HAVE (or >> HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ... >> >> sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly creative act and >> usually, if it is of value, the person(s) developing it will gain fame (ha >> ha) and some pr ... but, not quite in the same genre of developing a >> process for extracting some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular >> piece of equipment specially developed for that purpose >> >> i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... > > > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my > employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical > inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other > inventions. > -- Jay Warner Principal Scientist Warner Consulting, Inc. North Green Bay Road Racine, WI 53404-1216 USA Ph: (262) 634-9100 FAX:(262) 681-1133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web:http://www.a2q.com The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today? = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
> "PM" == Paige Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: PM> dennis roberts wrote: >> just think about all the software packages ... and what they >> would HAVE (or HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ... >> >> sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly >> creative act and usually, if it is of value, the person(s) >> developing it will gain fame (ha ha) and some pr ... but, not >> quite in the same genre of developing a process for extracting >> some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular piece of >> equipment specially developed for that purpose >> >> i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... PM> If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain PM> company, I invent some new algorithm, then my company has a PM> vested interest in making sure that the algorithm remains its PM> property and that no one else uses it, especially a PM> competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my employer to patent PM> such inventions. In this view, mathematical inventions are no PM> different than mechanical, chemical or other inventions. Except that in general, patents for mathematical "inventions" pertain to a specific use, rather than general existence (this can restrict the scope of the patent somewhat, depending on what the patent office lets through). That still doesn't mean that I have to like it, especially when patents are granted for trivial solutions (or for trivial problems, say in "bioinformatics"). Now good, solid, elegant statistical/mathematical solutions for a complex problem, _that_ I almost could see getting a patent (but not for over 3 years! That's ridiculous). I'm only thinking of statistical/mathematical patents here, not the general case. best, -tony -- A.J. RossiniRsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics UW Biostat/Center for AIDS Research [EMAIL PROTECTED] FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (friday is unknown) FHCRC: M--W : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy CFAR: ?? : 206-731-3647 (fax=3694)|Email is far better than phone UW:Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
In response to dennis roberts, who wrote in part: > > > i see "inventing" some algorithm asnot quite in the same > > genre of developing a process for extracting some enzyme from a > > substance ... using a particular piece of equipment specially > > developed for that purpose > > i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Paige Miller replied: > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one > else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my > employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical > inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other > inventions. Yes. And in another domain of discourse, statistical methods invented by statisticians like Abraham Wald, who worked on military problems during WWII, were military secrets until the war ended. "Official secret" is the governmental/military equivalent of "patent". -- Don. -- Donald F. Burrill[EMAIL PROTECTED] 348 Hyde Hall, Plymouth State College, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSC #29, Plymouth, NH 03264 (603) 535-2597 184 Nashua Road, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 471-7128 = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
dennis roberts wrote: > > just think about all the software packages ... and what they would HAVE (or > HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ... > > sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly creative act and > usually, if it is of value, the person(s) developing it will gain fame (ha > ha) and some pr ... but, not quite in the same genre of developing a > process for extracting some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular > piece of equipment specially developed for that purpose > > i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ... If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other inventions. -- Paige Miller Eastman Kodak Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's nothing until I call it!" -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire "Those black-eyed peas tasted all right to me" -- Dixie Chicks = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Summary: Patenting a statistical innovation
"T.S. Lim" wrote: > > Thanks much to all who have replied. Algorithms and software can > be and have been patented (at least in the US). It appears that > major statistical societies have no explicit guidelines regarding > patent (?). Just hope that patenting statistical innovations won't > become a new trend. Same here. Radford Neal wrote: > Patents may seem like a good idea in theory, but the practice has > become horrible. See http://www.bustpatents.com/ for ample documentation of the above. The "Patent Newsletter" distributed from this site via e-mail is one of the few newsletters (if not the only one) that I actually read. -- Petr _ P e t r K u z m i c, Ph.D. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BioKin Ltd. * Software and Consulting http://www.biokin.com 1652 S. Grand Ave. Ste. 337(509) 334-4131 Pullman, WA 99163 fax (509) 332-3493 = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Summary: Patenting a statistical innovation
Thanks much to all who have replied. Algorithms and software can be and have been patented (at least in the US). It appears that major statistical societies have no explicit guidelines regarding patent (?). Just hope that patenting statistical innovations won't become a new trend. === Online resources: World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.org) United States Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov) United Kingdom Patent Office (http://www.patent.gov.uk) === Christopher Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> recommends reading these articles (written by a lawyer): W.M. Borchard. 2000. "Do you need to patent it?" Industrial Physicist, Aug. 2000, pp. 26-27. W.M. Borchard. 2000. "Should you copyright it?" Industrial Physicist, Dec. 2000, pp. 31-33. === Excerpts from WIPO web site: About Intellectual Property Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs. Complete reading: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY READING MATERIAL WIPO Publication No.476(E) http://www.wipo.org/about-ip/en/iprm/index.htm Q: What is a patent? A: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. Q: What kinds of inventions can be protected? A: An invention must, in general, fulfill the following conditions to be protected by a patent. It must be of practical use; it must show an element of novelty, that is, some new characteristic which is not known in the body of existing knowledge in its technical field. This body of existing knowledge is called "prior art". The invention must show an inventive step which could not be deduced by a person with average knowledge of the technical field. Finally, its subject matter must be accepted as "patentable" under law. In many countries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, plant or animal varieties, discoveries of natural substances, commercial methods, or methods for medical treatment (as opposed to medical products) are generally not patentable. === Excerpts from statistical societies ethical guidelines: International Statistical Institute (http://www.cbs.nl/isi/ethics.htm) "... A principle of all scientific work is that it should be open to scrutiny, assessment and possible validation by fellow scientists. Particular attention should be given to this principle when using computer software packages for analysis by providing as much detail as possible. Any perceived advantage of withholding details of techniques or findings, say for competitive reasons, needs to be weighed against the potential disservice of such an action to the advancement of statistical knowledge. ..." American Statistical Association (http://www.amstat.org/profession/ethicalstatistics.html) "... Make new statistical knowledge widely available in order to benefit society at large. (Those who have funded the development of new statistical innovations are entitled to monetary and other rewards for their resulting products, software, or research results.)..." Royal Statistical Society (http://www.rss.org.uk/about/conduct.html) "... Fellows shall uphold the reputation of the Profession and shall seek to improve professional standards through participation in their development, use and enforcement, and shall avoid any action which will adversely affect the good standing of Statistics and Statisticians. ..." === -- T.S. Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Recursive-Partitioning.com Get paid to write review! http://recursive-partitioning.epinions.com = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
>>>>> "RN" == Radford Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RN> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RN> T.S. Lim wrote: >> Suppose you've created a new algorithm, formula, test, >> graphical display or other statistical innovations. Would you >> consider patenting it? Why? What are the pros and cons? What do >> professional statistical societies have to say about this >> issue? AFAIK, patenting a statistical innovation is not common >> among statisticians, is it? Comments? RN> It seems that patenting statistical algorithms is uncommon. RN> We must hope that it stays that way. In fields such as data RN> compression where patent madness has taken over, it is now RN> impossible to do anything without worrying about infringing RN> numerous patents, most of which are for things that were RN> invented many times before they were patented, by people who RN> thought they were too simple and obvious to bother patenting. RN> Even if such patents are invalid, they substantially impede RN> future research, since getting them invalidated is costly. And here's an example: United States Patent 6,030,341 Skates , et al. February 29, 2000 ROC method for early detection of disease Abstract A method of assessing risk of an individual for a disease is disclosed. A level of a marker for the disease is detected, and the risk of disease is computed from a statistical analysis of the marker level distributions for tested normal and diseased populations, using multivariate distributions. The computed risk is compared to thresholds to triage the individual into a normal, borderline, or elevated risk group, and a course of action based on the risk group is determined. Memory storing a program for execution on a data processing system, as well as a computer system comprising said memory is also disclosed, the memory comprising a receiver for signals representative of levels of a marker for the disease; a central processing unit for computing risk of disease from one or more levels of the marker, and for comparing the computed risk to thresholds to triage the individual; and storage medium for the marker levels for subsequent computations of risk of disease. Inventors: Skates; Steven J. (Cambridge, MA); Jacobs; Ian (Bromley, GB); Knapp; Robert (Chestnut Hill, MA) Assignee: The General Hospital Corporation (Boston, MA) Appl. No.: 139088 Filed: August 24, 1998 Current U.S. Class: 600/300; 128/923 Intern'l Class: A61B 005/00 Field of Search: 600/300 705/2-3 395/22 128/920-924 -- A.J. RossiniRsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics UW Biostat/Center for AIDS Research [EMAIL PROTECTED] FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (friday is unknown) FHCRC: M--W : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy CFAR: ?? : 206-731-3647 (fax=3694)|Email is far better than phone UW:Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Patenting a statistical innovation
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T.S. Lim wrote: >Suppose you've created a new algorithm, formula, test, graphical >display or other statistical innovations. Would you consider patenting >it? Why? What are the pros and cons? What do professional statistical >societies have to say about this issue? AFAIK, patenting a statistical >innovation is not common among statisticians, is it? Comments? It seems that patenting statistical algorithms is uncommon. We must hope that it stays that way. In fields such as data compression where patent madness has taken over, it is now impossible to do anything without worrying about infringing numerous patents, most of which are for things that were invented many times before they were patented, by people who thought they were too simple and obvious to bother patenting. Even if such patents are invalid, they substantially impede future research, since getting them invalidated is costly. Patents may seem like a good idea in theory, but the practice has become horrible. Radford Neal = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Patenting a statistical innovation
Suppose you've created a new algorithm, formula, test, graphical display or other statistical innovations. Would you consider patenting it? Why? What are the pros and cons? What do professional statistical societies have to say about this issue? AFAIK, patenting a statistical innovation is not common among statisticians, is it? Comments? Thanks for reading. -- T.S. Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Recursive-Partitioning.com Get paid to write review! http://recursive-partitioning.epinions.com = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
