Bill,
I am trying to mend broken bridges. I could use your help.
Please read below.
Cheers,
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Berz" <berz@xxxxxxx <mailto:berz@xxxxxxx>>
To: <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "'interval'" <reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Reliable Computing] Re: Impact of Walster's
interval patents
> Baker,
>
> I am not sure if you had read my previous message carefully.
>
> It would be hard to believe that it is your opinion that it's
not a big
> problem if US government funding agencies don't want to be
involved in
> interval related work because of the influence of SUN patents.
I tried to
> explain that this is the situation we find ourselves in and the
key source of
> our problem.
>
> Perhaps it is useful if all those individuals who have received
funding from
> SUN and/or have signed contracts spelling out obligations they
may have
> against SUN disclose this.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Martin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Ralph Baker Kearfott
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:07
>> To: berz@xxxxxxx <mailto:berz@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: 'R. Baker Kearfott'; 'interval'
>> Subject: Re: [Reliable Computing] Re: Impact of Walster's
>> interval patents
>>
>> Martin et al,
>>
>> Excuse me, but I'm trying my best to stay out of the fray.
>> My main point was that I don't see a big problem specifically
>> with the Sun patents, but you (or Arnold) are free to take a
>> different point of view, including expressing opinions and
>> fighting patents legally, if either of you feels it is best
>> use of your time.
>>
>> That said, I welcome refutations of any statements that
>> appear to be misleading or inaccurate, as long as the
>> exchange remains collegial.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Baker
>>
>> Martin Berz wrote:
>> > Baker and all,
>> >
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>> > In summary, the above quoted exchange between Neumaier and
>> Kearfott is
>> > quite off base. Specifically, I reject the notion that I
>> am imposing
>> > any ban on this community out of my own judgment. In
>> particular, all
>> > this mess is not created by us, but rather firstly by those
>> that stake
>> > unfounded claims about invention of interval methods, and
secondly
>> > because of the legal consequences for contractual work
>> their actions have.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Martin Berz
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
Baker, Martin, Reliable Computing Group:
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> My main point was that I don't see a big problem specifically
> with the Sun patents,
Working at a European university still some way out reach of US
patent
claims, I'm not feeling personally threatend by Sun's claims.
Nevertheless, if these claims directly or indirectly interfere
with the
further development and distribution of the COSY software and with
past, present or future cooperations of Martin Berz and Kyoko Makino
with other members of our community, then I see a big problem
with these
claims.
> but you (or Arnold) are free to take
> a different point of view, including expressing opinions and
> fighting patents legally, if either of you feels it is best
> use of your time.
Martin's mails didn't give me the impression that he was keen on
court
procedures, but that these patent claims substantially hamper his
scientific progress.
Best regards,
Markus
Markus,
Yes, you are right. (See my subsequent email.)
It's a shame.
Baker
Markus Neher wrote:
.
.
.
> Martin's mails didn't give me the impression that he was keen
on court
> procedures, but that these patent claims substantially hamper his
> scientific progress.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------
Martin Berz wrote:
>> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>>> How does this affect the ban that Martin Berz imposed on
members of
>>> the interval community regarding the use of his COSY software
because,
>>> allegedly, we have been not fighting enough these patent issues?
> There is no "ban" that "I" am imposing. The rules we are
currently following
> were imposed by our funding agencies and are not the results of our
> discretionary judgment. COSY is supported by the US federal
government through
> various grants. As such, it must not use proprietary technology
of companies
> without proper licensing agreements in place, which is
something these
> contracts are very clear about. The claims of ownership of SUN
of much of the
> interval algorithms would mean extensive needs for license
contracts from SUN.
> Our university MSU is not prepared to undertake this for a
variety of reasons,
> in particular because doing so even cements the notion that SUN
and related
> entities are the rightful owner of the corresponding interval
methods.
> Furthermore, we are not believers in overgrowing licensing
agreements for pure
> scientific research in the first place and want to limit them
to the minimum
> possible.
>
> As a remedy to the highly unclear ownership situation, our
funding agencies
> have asked us to strictly curtail exposure to the interval
community as a
> whole, until this matter is better sorted out.
So the ban was imposed by you upon a request of your funding
agencies.
The funding agencies neither own nor distribute COSY, hence cannot
ban its use except by winning your cooperation to do so. You were
asked,
and you complied out of fear or other considerations. You could
as well
have questioned the reasonableness of the request or its
efficiency in
reaching a rational goal, and negotiated a consensus more friendly
towards the interval community.
But there is no rational goal behind the ban. Neither the use nor the
not-use of COSY by members of the interval community makes the
slightest
difference to whether or not COSY and its future development
infringes
on SUN's patent rights, and hence whether or not it is affected
by the
SUN patents.
And by beating the interval community for the wrongs done by SUN you
(and those whose money supports your research) you harm the wrong
institution! This is ethically questionable.
> One must recognize that there is no homogeneous "we" at all in
this matter,
> but rather various individuals operate under different boundary
conditions.
>
> * We at MSU follow the rules imposed on us by our government
contracts.
Maybe you'd disclose these rules in so far as they forbid interaction
with the interval community. It would be interesting to see the
formulation and their legally binding content. The interval community
does not exist as a legal subject; so it is completely up to your
discretion to define the content and boundary of the ``interval
community as a whole''. You can probably freely decide whom to
consider
a part of it.
But by any reasonable definition you belong to the interval community
since you and some others from your group published a number
of significant papers in the area and participated in a number of
interval-oriented conferences, even as a main speaker. Thus to
fully comply with the request of your funding agencies you'd ban
yourself and your group from using COSY!
> In summary, the above quoted exchange between Neumaier and
Kearfott is quite
> off base. Specifically, I reject the notion that I am imposing
any ban on
> this community out of my own judgment.
You endorsed and executed the poor judgement of those who had
asked you
to strictly curtail exposure to the interval community as a whole.
Thus you carry the responsibility for it.
Arnold Neumaier
-------------------------------
Markus Neher wrote:
>> but you (or Arnold) are free to take
>> a different point of view, including expressing opinions and
>> fighting patents legally, if either of you feels it is best
>> use of your time.
>
> Martin's mails didn't give me the impression that he was keen
on court
> procedures, but that these patent claims substantially hamper his
> scientific progress.
The problem is that he felt justified by that to comply with a
misguided request of his funding agencies that substantially hampers
the scientific progress of the ``interval community as a whole''
in the sense he has given to this term.
Arnold Neumaier
-----------------
>
> Martin,
>
> No, you are right, I had just skimmed your previous message.
> It is a very reasonable explanation of your situation.
.
.
.
> The impact of "Walster's patents" seems to be the opposite of
> what I believe Sun's original strategy was. My guess is that
> both Bill and Sun management are quite dismayed about this.
> C'est la vie.
>
> Baker
>
Oui, c'est la vie, but I think there is also a bigger lesson to
learn: for
long-term success, there are no shortcuts, and quick tricks don't
work.
Martin
---------------
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Ray Moore
<rmoore17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Would you please email or otherwise contact an appropriate
official at SUN
> requesting that SUN turn all its interval related patents over
to the public
> domain?
In order to provide community support for Bill's request to Sun
Microsystems, I suggest that interested members of the interval
community express their personal endorsement of the concept. The
objective being that Bill should be able to act in some sense as a
representative of our community.
I hereby tender my endosement. If further, more specific statements
would be useful I am willing to provide them.
It might be beneficial to draft a joint request that individuals
could
"sign". In light of that possibiliy, are there any readers of this
email list who would object or would abstain from such an expression
of community preference?
FWIW,
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire
------------------------
Dear Bill, (Baker and Ray: FYI)
I echo Ray's request in my strongest possible terms. The
community very much needs the clarification now. When I worked on
the Sun interval arithmetic project led by Baker in 1998, we were
not aware that Sun was going to patent IA. When you requested
from me for, and I sent you, the source LaTeX file of the
interval BLAS standard, you did not mention anything related to
Sun's IA patent. As a university professor, I am always willing
to contribute my work to the scientific community but not for
specific interests of any specific venders.
Chenyi
>>> "Ray Moore" <rmoore17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/29/2009 12:05 PM >>>
Bill,
Would you please email or otherwise contact an appropriate
official at SUN requesting that SUN turn all its interval related
patents over to the public domain?
Thank you very much.
Ray Moore
------------------
Dear Ray,
thanks; this may have been the most useful message this mailing
list has seen yet, irrespective of its immediate outcome.
Best wishes,
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Ray Moore
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2009 13:05
*To:* Bill Walster
*Cc:* reliable computing
*Subject:* [Reliable Computing] SUN's interval patents
Bill,
Would you please email or otherwise contact an appropriate
official at SUN requesting that SUN turn all its interval
related patents over to the public domain?
Thank you very much.
Ray Moore
------------------
The Sun patents have nothing to do with anything of interest to
the interval research community. They *only* have to do with the
*implementation* of computing with intervals on hardware. This
has been a total misunderstanding on the part of people who
apparently are not well versed in reading patents.
Nobody at Oracle or Sun would listen to anything I have to say on
the matter, so it would just be a waste of time.
Cheers,
Bill
Ray Moore wrote:
Bill,
I sent it to your gmail.
Cheers,
Ray
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ray Moore <mailto:rmoore17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* Bill Walster <mailto:billwalster@xxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* reliable computing
<mailto:reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:05 PM
*Subject:* SUN's interval patents
Bill,
Would you please email or otherwise contact an appropriate
official at SUN requesting that SUN turn all its interval
related patents over to the public domain?
Thank you very much.
Ray Moore