From orre@nada.kth.se  Wed May  9 14:33:20 2001
From: orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:33:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [Patents] priorart.org no thank you
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105091216270.23976-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0105091427220.414-100000@faun.nada.kth.se>

Pilch and Jozef,
I agree with both of you, and wise thinking is needed, depending on
each person's goals.

Mr Gregory Aharonian's way of acting tonight has convinced me that
the whole patent system is soon dead, he will be part of killing
it himself. How long time this takes is hard to say, but as long
as there is a patent system we need a strategy for protection.

This is my suggestion:
ALWAYS publish your ideas at dejanews, whatever idea, algorithm or
solution to a problem it could be.

In case you really need to urgently avoid someone patenting your idea,
or "idea modules", as in my case, and you can afford the cost, publish
at foresight.

I've now started to realize how the following factors will generate a
self regulating adaptive system, when we have got rid of the patent
system.
> 	1) your own credit/satisfaction from your invention
> 	2) your own short term benefits from an invention
> 	3) your own long term benefits from an invention
> 	4) benefits for the whole society
> 	5) potentials for competitiors to invent alternative solutions
> 	6) incentives for competitiors to invent alternative solutions
> 	7) overall technological development speed as being a tradeoff

I have a simulator (in Java) where I can test such a system. Hopefully
all parameters will self adapt to an optimal solution so no artificial
speed limiting constants, like the 20 year patent span, would need to
be predefined.

The problem is of course, that people, due to genetical and environmental
factors value the different factors differently. I guess that I need
to initialize these different values by asserting a certain mixture,
related to the real values you find in a real population.
The value factors for people will of course also vary over time but
these will hopefully also converge to somewhat stable solutions.

   Best regards
   Roland

On Wed, 9 May 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> > > The 20th of March 2000 I invented an algorithm which can search
> > > for solutions using probabilistic inference finding a set of
> > > most likely solutions to a set of predefined goals in a huge data
> > > sets of sparse information which changes over time.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Due to the unlimited patentability of software in US I intend to
> > > patent this algorithm there and I will patent it in all countries
> > > where software patentability is allowed.
> >
> > Dear Roland
> > To achieve one of your aims - not allow the others to patent your
> > innovation - you don't have to patent yourself. It is enough to publish in
> > good place. Look for Foresight Institute and IP.com initiative.
> > http://www.foresight.org/priorart/index.html
> > This will add your invention to the patent prior art database. If you don't
> > believe in effectiveness you can publish only some modules. Look at the
> > patent debate at Slashdot.
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/21/139207.shtml
>
> Here I might add:
>
> Don't publish at priorart.org or ip.com but rather somewhere on Usenet.
> Dejanews maintains a reasonably reliable documentation of what was posted
> when.
>
> It is much less of a hassle to post your ideas on Usenet, and it is not
> important to put them into a form that makes prior-art search easy for
> examiners. If someone else later gets a patent on your idea, you can
> easily scare him away from using that patent against free software by
> simply showing your publication.
>
> Trying to make prior art more searchable is a task for the maintainers of
> the patent system.  If they fail on that task, the free software community
> benefits, because it in the best position to utilise the legal insecurity
> caused by the unassessability of prior art.  It has thousands of
> programmers who can work together to take revenge on some of those
> companies that are nasty to free software by selectively making their
> patent cardhouses fall down.
>
> What we however need is more systems like Dejanews.  E.g. certified
> time-stamping as a regular part of CVS servers and mailing list archives
> and the like.  We are going to get there, step by step.
>
> Initiatives like IP.com and Foresight INstitute seem highly cynical to
> me.  Those patent professionals seem to believe that "opensource
> programmers" are kind of idiots who do everything for free, even to the
> degree of spending time and money (20$) for the sole purpose of
>
> - having patent examiners confirm that their prior art is prior art
> - strengthening the patent system
> - removing the only weapon that the patent system offers to
>   free software programmers for their self-defense
>
> The only good thing about the IP.com scheme is that it doesn't work
> anyway, no matter how hard they try.
>
> -phm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>




