From Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>  Fri May 11 08:03:36 2001
From: Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se> (Roland Orre)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:03:36 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [Patents] AI with Limited Software Patentability
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0105070255390.18788-100000@faun.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0105110825300.8925-100000@faun.nada.kth.se>

Dear Gregory Aharonian,

This is my only logical answer.

As I have invented an AI algorithm one year ago, I know that
implementing intelligence is not a severly hard problem given
the right conditions and the right computer system.

Earlier I have tried to suggest a limited patentability for
software, to define a concept where software+machine is not so
easy to convert to a an intelligent, patentable machine.

Greg has reluctantly refused to answer this,

but given a designer, who is clever enough, anything is doable.
Our brains are not God's original design, which was much simpler.

Mr Gregory Aharonian, our brains and this world are your own delicate
design and I think you are worth the most enchanting approval on this.
Our brain is an incredible exquisite design, probably the most refined
design which has ever existed, implementing intelligence in the
hardest possible way.

	Greetings
	Roland Orre


On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roland Orre wrote:
> Mr Gregory Aharonian has suggested that software in the form of
> computer programs as well as software in form of business models
> should be patentable. Mr Aharonian uphold the opinion that software
> and hardware are equivalent.
>
> Mr Aharonian, I'm prepared to make a compromise to your suggestion,
> making software to a certain extent patentable as part of a machine.
>
> First I will describe what a machine is, then I will describe what
> a computer is, a computer system and an intelligent system. These
> definitons below are my own definitions and need to be further
> specified by patent professionals to get a stringent definition.
>
> (1) Machine:
> 	A device which can perform certain predefined tasks.
> 	A device is composed of atoms and molecules.
>
> (2) Computer:
> 	A machine which can perform certain predefined tasks
> 	according a predefined recipe in form of instructions,
> 	i.e. the software, using predefined clearly specified
> 	variables or registers to store state information.
>
> (3) Computer system:
> 	A computer which can use extra memory for replaceble
> 	software and extra scratch pad memory which can be
> 	used differently for different software programs.
>
> (4) Intelligent system:
> 	A computer system which can modify its own software and
> 	memory usage over time to allow it to utilize empirical
> 	knowledge for adapting its actions.
>
> Patentability will be allowed for the machine (1).
>
> A computer including software according to the specification (2)
> above I can allow to still be considered a patentable machine.
>
> The software to this machine (2) I could possibly allow to be
> patentable separately from its hardware if its memory usage is
> predefined, making it possible to patent e.g. a specific VHDL code,
> under the condition that every variable register or memory cell is
> specified and documented in the patent description. No undefined
> scratch pad areas are allowed. No dynamic variables.
>
> That is, programs containing recursive procedures can not be patented,
> but iterative procedures working in a fixed predefined memory space
> might, as long as the usage of every memory cell is predefined. Vectors
> are allowed as long as their content is definable in terms of simple
> variable types with a clearly specified content. Vectors are not
> allowed to contain pointers to program code, i.e. no computed go to.
>
> It is probably obvious that any computer system (3) can theoretically
> be turned into an intelligent system (4). Systems according to (3) and
> (4) can not be patented.
>
> Mr Aharonian, if you allow for these limitations I could
> possibly discuss limited patentability of software.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To further encourage you to work towards this limited patentability
> of software in US I will describe an invention I made in March 2000.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
> The 21st of March 2000 I documented this algorithm briefly and posted
> it to collegues at WHO (World Health Organization) and to some
> of my computer science collegues and friends.
>
> Of obvious reasons I will not describe this algorithm here but
> the principle is that it searches for all possible solutions to
> a set of goals and rejects those solutions which contain
> contradictions, somewhat reminding about the standard resolution
> algorithms.
> For each new information item added to its knowledge base it
> tries to fulfil all it's goals again with the constraint that
> consistency is preserved. That is, only true solutions are allowed.
>
> I invented this algorithm after an introspection of my own mind
> when I finally solved a problem which I had been thinking about
> for several years.
>
> I have got confirmed from professors an collegues in computer
> science that this algorithm constitutes an artificial intelligence.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> This algorithm has nothing to do with computers per se, at the
> moment I have it described in pseudo code, almost as ordinary
> english, only, a company and a person (preferably with a computer
> system) can run this algorithm as a business model as well.
>
> When this algorithm is applied as a business model it will after
> a while adapt to the most optimal scheme for a given business
> situation and over time gain empirical knowledge about a large
> set of non predefined business models.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> (
>   As a parenthesis I can mention that experiences from society
>   simulations we have done at our institute have shown that
>   general stable solutions among many interacting agents have
>   been reached only when the agents cooperate. When the agents
>   are not cooperating (as e.g  when there are patentable business
>   models) it most often ends up with solutions where only a very
>   limited set of agents are left.
> )
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
> I will also patent this method as a business model, as long as
> it is possible to do that in US.
>
> I also intend to code this algorithm in several essential programming
> languages as C, C++, CL, Java, Scheme and release this algorithm
> copyrighted under GPL. This means that anyone who wants to use and
> improve this algorithm can do it. To use this algorithm for commercial
> purposes is not doable because I have the patent on this. The usage
> and improvements of this algorithm for the public benefit will be
> organized under the portal http://www.neurologic.org
>
> I intend to use this algorithm as a business model for my own company
> NeuroLogic, http://www.neurologic.se (.com is not resolved yet)
>
> No stocks will be sold. Every new successful business method
> the algorithm comes up with will be patented. Every company which
> wants to use this algorithm in their business model will be welcome
> to join with my company, under strict conditions, but I will not
> license the algorithm.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, Mr Gregory Aharonian, do you want to be remembered in the future
> US history as the one who forced me to patent this algorithm
> making it possible to gain monopoly over most US businesses, or,
> do you want to be remembered as the one who tried to prevent me
> from patenting this algorithm?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> The choice is yours Mr Aharonian.
>
>     Best regards
>     Roland Orre
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by the EPO mailing list.
Information on how to leave this mailinglist can be found at:
http://www.european-patent-office.org/mail.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------


