RE: [xml-dev] XML-DEV list - prior art

[sterling <sstouden@thelinks.com>]

Thanks for your comments.  I want to pleade that I am in no way arguing 
with anyone on this list.  I am simply trying to express why I think it
important to human endeavor to reference, document and link every source  
of art contained within every software project in a way that allows 
prior art used and novel art created to be identified, from the 
source documents, by anyone involved with it.  

See below for my specific answers to your points.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Nathan Young -X (natyoung - Artizen at Cisco) wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> The scientific community attempts to accurately attribute discoveries 
> to the people who make them.  
>  This can be extremely tricky to do, and the structures you describe 
>  have been set up so that people who follow them have an increased 
>  likelihood of getting credit for their contributions.

Different from the patent system, the basic form of a system 
something like that which I propose, would more likely than 
not, identify the actual discoverer of the new technology.  
Where's the trick in that?

> 
> The patent system may play a similar role in the world of commerce.
> It should enhance the ability of people or organizations who 
> follow the forms to profit from their discoveries.


The patent system is designed to identify, capture, extract, name, 
index, record, delineate, and survey [ice nirds], from each human 
mental thought that issues, each quanta of socio-controlling or 
economic value.  It operates independent of a particular software 
product.
 

The political system (which appends to the patent system), and 
those who lobby the politicians, use the power of government 
to impose by rule of law into issued patents as follows:
 a. defendable claim to private ownership of recorded quanta.
 b. artificial enhancement of the value of privately owned quanta.
   b.1. private owners vested with powers of the public state
     b.1.a anti-competitive monopoly rights
     b.1.b privileged powers, normally reserved to the state
 c. transfers of captured expressions to the economic benefit 
    of powerful market players. 

   (note: the patent system is politically entangled) 

Philosophically, I accuse the intangible property 
politico-patent system to have been designed by a 
state intent on trafficking in human minds [the 
system creates of the human genius it raises and 
educates [mental slaves] and makes market players
the feudal lords of the productive genius 
provided by the law encapsulated slaves].  

>I think I hear you advocating for the partial replacement or 
>supplementation of the patent system with the academic system for
>attribution, at least with respect to the world of commercial software.

My proposal seeks to enable easier, more certain and more timely,
developer assess to relevant prior art and to move toward 
eliminating filing either obvious or pre existing art patents.

Original inventors sometimes do not think highly enough of their 
invention to claim it as novel, and do not file for patents. Hence
prior art goes unnoticed until someone else patents it.

My purpose is to device for those who engage software development
to understand the current state of the art (as it exist today, 
not three years from now, when a patent might issue) by reading 
a few software programs and following the references backward.   

Another purpose is to retain for inventors their claim as  
contributors, no matter who finally gets the patent and 
makes the money. 

I hope my point is made by my answers, more clear and that you
will take these comments in the vain of discussion rather than
arguments?

 sterling


> 
> Am I missing your point?  I'm not sure how literally to take you when
> you say things like:
> 
> > In this
> > way, within a short period the entire software industry would have a 
> > moving cummulative reference of all prior claims attached to 
> > the topics
> > that were included in a current work. 
> 
> 
> ------------>Nathan
> 
> 
> 
> > Scientist append to and footnote to every appendage to all 
> > portions of 
> > their newly published content so that all prior (or at least 
> > the leading 
> > reference to the prior art relating to every point claimed in 
> > the paper or 
> > used to developed the current product has a easily findable 
> > reference  
> > (ancient for link) to the prior art.  Part art is part of the product.
> > 
> > All subsequent researchers on the subject need look to the few most 
> > current papers on the topic to discover all known prior art 
> > and to have 
> > the reference to include for his or her own software. 
> > 
> > What would solve this 'discovery of prior art" problem with definite 
> > objectivity would be to get all publishers of software to adopt the  
> > policy of referencing (making clear developer conclusions 
> > that the cited 
> > reference fails to exactly cover the claims of the current [software] 
> > work, if any, or the developer would by his inclusion of the 
> > reference 
> > without comment, admit that he or she is using the prior art 
> > disclosed in 
> > the linked, footnooted and appended references.
> > 
> > If the law could be changed, so that the first to publish had 
> > the claim, 
> > there would be little doubt as to who had the ownership in the claim. 
> > 
> > In short every software project would carry a cumulative 
> > history of known 
> > prior art.  Each failure to include and explain a reference 
> > would, I am 
> > sure find, a critic who would point out the failure so that the next  
> > published projects would update to include the missing 
> > reference.  In this
> > way, within a short period the entire software industry would have a 
> > moving cummulative reference of all prior claims attached to 
> > the topics
> > that were included in a current work. 
> > 
> > Such a system would make it easier to explain the novelity in current 
> > works and might even reduce the frequency of patent lawsuits.  The 
> > community of developers would need to impose this reference 
> > to prior art 
> > on themselves at least until it could be made a law.  
> > 
> > More important would be to develop a non legal prior art server to  
> > do little more than list topics with references to prior art and 
> > patented owners of the prior arts so that developers could append to 
> > their works the topic listed on the server. 
> > 
> > Further all persons with claims of encroachment could notify 
> > publishers of 
> > pior works and remind them them of the claim and the missing 
> > reference.  
> > 
> > This would bring the art of law to the realm of the scientists and 
> > software developers who actually do the work and it would prevent the 
> > owner of the patent from claiming the innovative genius that 
> > the developer 
> > contributed in generating the patent.  ( Recall that under 
> > many work for 
> > hire agreements, the developer does not own the patent or 
> > copyright rights 
> > to his or her or works). 
> > 
> > The reason this has not been done in the software industry is 
> > that the 
> > software code is not always made public [open source], so the 
> > genius of 
> > the developer encoded into each line of code cannot be 
> > indexed for the benefit 
> > of the next developer.   Current Uncertainity demands a 
> > better system than 
> > now exits and to improve the system the developers not the 
> > lawyers will 
> > have to speak.
> > 
> > sterling
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________
> > 
> > XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> > to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> > spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> > 
> > [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> > Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> > subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> > List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> > 
>