On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 22:36, Wayne Wilson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tim Churches wrote: > | See http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/01/HNnaantispam_1.html > | > | > | Some of the claims mentioned for this particular patent are doubly > | absurd, particularly the use of Bayes rule for email classification, > | because such use is obvious from the literature > | > I initially thouht the same as you Tim. But re-reading the article (I > have not read the patent, which we should do to verify the reportage) > they claim not to have patented Bayes techniques, but to have patented > combining several techniques, including Bayes, together to detect Spam. > > Thus, the IP history of Bayes techniques is only relevant to the degree > that someone else revealed this combination in combating Spam that they use!
Yes, but what patent attorneys routinely do, when drafting patent applications, is include claims which they know have clear prior art (but which they conveniently ignore), but which are the foundations of the "novel" claims (sometimes truly so, mostly not) which ought to form the real basis of the patent. The goal is to scare away others, including researchers, from working in those very broad areas. It is intellectually dishonest and has a major stifling effect on innovation - which is precisely the aim of the corporate patent attorneys - slower innovation means a longer run of potential advantage and profit for their client. The entire system works to inhibit what it was designed to promote. > There are even broader claims at the Patent level, by Postini, for > example, for the general idea automatically detecting and processing > mail in a way to remove Spam. I suspect that such broad claims fall into the above category: ones which the patent attorneys know are indefensible on the basis of prior art or obviousness, but which are set up as a "moat" around more defensible claims. > If you examine the industry and see the deals being done and the > consolidation underway (Brightmail is used by at least two other vendors > and was just purchased themselves by Symantec), you might see that these > Patents have something to do with corporate valuation...... So, I would > suspect that it's more then the Patent system, per se, at fault here..... Sure, but don't get me started on the evils of unrestrained Capitalism... -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0
