Re: [Fwd: Re: [Reliable Computing] reliable_computing bug: Old, resolved emails still being posted]
And I'd like to relay my own opinion that I posted to the
reliable_computing list. It follows, but first, I'd like
to say that IEEE guidelines (in the call for patents, which
is shortly due to be sent out this month) states roughly that working
groups should not speculate on the validity or strength
of patents in their discussions.
Baker
---------------------------------------------------------------
reliable_computing subscribers,
I have decided to work under the premise that all parties
involved are well-intentioned and rational, including
personnel at Sun, who are also our colleagues. In legal
matters, we can speculate about hypothetical situations
that seemingly cannot be ruled out by our mathematical
analysis of the legal documents. However, in my judgment,
these situations are unlikely to occur, and I don't let
the fact we cannot mathematically rigorously rule them out
affect my own work in research and software development.
(I do, however, try to obey clear laws concerning
copyright, plagiarism, etc.) I think I can contribute
more by doing technical research and software development
than by trying to fight legal battles.
However, I realize fighting legal battles is something
that sometimes must be done. In particular, there apparently
are some general problems with U.S. patent law that are
also causing inequities in many areas other than in interval
analysis. For example, several years ago, I read of a
bakery owned by a husband and wife that was sued because
they produced a kind of stuffed bread from their home village
in Europe that was similar to a kind of bread that a corporation
had patented. Furthermore, there is a "pressure to patent"
in corporations just as there is a "pressure to publish"
in academia, and we all know of journal submissions without
substantial new content that are submitted (and may even
appear) due to this pressure to publish.
I just think that I am not qualified to fight
patent battles, and that the environment surrounding the interval
patents is such that lawsuits regarding them are unlikely to
occur.
Of course, Arnold and Martin may have different opinions, and
I certainly will respect it if they choose to take a different
course of action, but I reserve the right to continue
to differ.
Sincerely,
Baker
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
I'd like to bring the attached letter by Martin Berz
(from the reliable computing mailing list, which might generate
more on this topic) to the attention of this list.
It may be necessary (and is probably desirable) to ask Microsoft
(and soon Oracle) for an official Letter of Assurance.
Those here who understand the legal issues involved should advise
the committee on how to proceed.
Arnold Neumaier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
RE: [Reliable Computing] reliable_computing bug: Old, resolved emails
still being posted
From:
"Martin Berz" <berz@xxxxxxx>
Date:
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:53 -0400
To:
"'interval'" <reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"'interval'" <reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Baker and all,
*** This is NOT an erroneous old message and hence should be posted to the
Reliable Computing list ***
A letter such as the one mentioned alone, if it exists, can hardly be called a
solution. For one, it covers only a very limited aspect of SUN's claims of
having invented some of the most fundamental interval operations.
But furthermore, there are now various other "owners" of "rights", and SUN may
not have the legal power to make decisions on what was originally "their"
interval "inventions". For example, a few years back SUN sold the rights to
use all their patents to Microsoft in bulk for in the order of $1.5 Million
per patent. One could imagine that MS would want to limit any interference
with their ~$35 M investment in intervals. The same may even apply to the
"inventors" because such action may interfere with "their" royalty share,
which in industry practice often amounts to 10-20% of proceeds from sales. Now
SUN is in the process of being taken over by Oracle, further spreading
"ownership" of interval rights to entities that have little connection or
expected inherent benevolence to the interval community.
What is needed is somebody at SUN who has a minimum amount of decency, common
sense, and understanding of intervals, who looks at the obvious evidence and
concludes that these claims are unfounded and thus works towards withdrawal of
the patents and revocation of associated claims. But considering the large
amounts of money involved, the complex "ownership", the elapsed time, an
industry tendency to embrace more and more complex legal shenanigans - and in
my personal opinion most unfortunately, the apparently small relative weight
of decency and scientific integrity in the entire situation - common sense may
not have a chance to prevail.
Best regards,
Martin Berz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of R. Baker Kearfott
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 13:11
To: interval
Subject: Re: [Reliable Computing] reliable_computing bug:
Old, resolved emails still being posted
Arnold,
To my knowledge, Sun submitted an official Letter of
Assurance to IEEE regarding its patents and the standard.
(At least David Hough said they were going to do that.)
Baker
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
Please accept my apologies, since old emails from 2005, that have
previously been posted, seem to be periodically posted
again. This
is especially disturbing since some of these are concerned
with very
controversial issues that have been, in effect, resolved
since then.
Hmmm. How were they resolved?
Apparently only by weaving a veil of silence over it.
Or was there a more substantial solution?
Did Sun etc. say they won't use the patents against the use of
interval methods in the public domain?
I am really curious.
Arnold Neumaier
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at
Lafayette (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston
Street) Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------