Patents to be Auctioned

US Patents 6,397,219 and 6,466,940 which relate to the insertion and extraction of contact, classification and geographic data into and from web pages are to be sold at auction 2008 April 1-2. With a priority date of 1997 February 21, the patents anticipated key aspects of the Semantic Web.

I wrote and filed those patents because I wanted something like the Sematic Web to evolve sooner rather than later. The patents mouldered for 10 years until I was approached recently by Ocean Tomo (http://www.oceantomo.com/index.html) who offered to auction them (http://www.oceantomoauctions.com/OTA_Catalogue_Lot.asp?eventid=42008&Lot=16).

Who gets to own the patents is now out of my hands. However, I’d like them to go to a good home if I can find one.

If you know of anyone likely to be interested in these patents, would you be so kind as to let them know?

I’ve set up a web site for the patent auction lot here: http://www.freewebs.com/dudley-mills/index.htm

Kind regards,

Dudley Mills,

30 Hutchison Crescent,

Kambah, ACT 2902,

Australia.

Phone: +61-2-6296-2639

Thanks Renato,

> You didn't anticipated anything, the concept of semantic data is a very

> old concept, not to say ancient, you just filled a bloody patent to be

> able to profit from public domain ideas before anyone could do it.

I anticipated the extraction of contact, classification and geographic semantic data from web pages and its incorporation in searchable databases.

I agree that the concept of semantic data is very old and I feel it is well past the time that the concept should have had substantial commercial importance on the internet.

The problem with ideas in the public domain is that they are difficult to exploit in a competitive commercial environment with the result, generally, that they are slow to be adopted commercially. The purpose of patents is to encourage commercial investment.

> Third, patents are the sole expression of complete incompetence. If you

> were minimally competent you would have built a start up, implemented

> one of the ideas and got really rich by selling it to Google or

> Microsoft, but that's too difficult, isn't it?

Fair criticism if I had the fire that you espouse but I am retired. If Google or Microsoft want the patents, I’d consider those to be good homes. But perhaps there is some other person or organization out there with the fire for whom these patents represent a more important opportunity.

> Fourth, do you have any idea of what W3C does for the Internet? I may be

> wrong but I've never seen W3C selling patents or profiting from their

> recommendations, so what's your point in selling patents here? Do you

> expect W3C will buy some?

Years ago I asked W3C if they had any use for the patents (donated free). They suggested I setup (yet) another working group. If free does not do the job, I’ll try not-free.

Kind regards,

Dudley Mills,

30 Hutchison Crescent,

Kambah, ACT 2902,

Australia.

Phone: +61-2-6296-2639

Ta Noah,

Guess you won’t be bidding afterall?

On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:49:48AM +1100, Dudley Mills wrote:

> The problem with ideas in the public domain is that they are

> difficult to exploit in a competitive commercial environment with

> the result, generally, that they are slow to be adopted

> commercially. The purpose of patents is to encourage commercial

> investment.

> Wrong. The purpose of the patent system is to provide a small

> incentive for people to invent new and original THINGS by offering

> them a small amount of protection in exchange for sharing the details

> of the invention with the public for the greater good.

Right. Disclosure is an essential part of it. Not the whole of it.

> The type of patent that you hold completely works against every aspect

> of that description and damages our community.

> As has already been pointed out, the fact that one day semantic data

> would be extracted from the worlds largest dataset, namely the WWW, is

> a complete no-brainer. I doubt that you needed the assurances of the

> patent system to have the motivation to spend, what, 5 minutes, coming

> up with that idea.

I’d be most grateful if you would point out a major application either

planned or in operation.

> Secondly, and more importantly, your sharing of the idea does not

> benefit the general public for the greater good because you, and many

> others like you, are abusing the system to get protection for ideas,

> equations, algorithms and processes (Amazon OneClick for example),

> which were not originally anticipated to be covered by the patent

> system, and then preventing anyone else, from small startups to free

> software developers like my self, from using your "original ideas"

> without hefty licencing fees.

There is another perspective. Major developments allow smaller developers

to grow in their shade. Sorry to say that I don’t think that your free

software development would cut the mustard here. Money needs to be in

prospect, made and to pass through many hands to make possible the

required amount of cooperation by many people with different skills, most

of whom need to make a living.

> Lastly, your hand-wavy claim about patents being used to encourage

> commercial development is totally bogus, and you know it. Any investor

> worth his salt knows that good ideas are two a penny, it's the

> execution that matters.

There are plenty of businesses paying royalties for the use of

a wide variety of Intellectual Property. They do so because they

are the busineses which see the value of an idea. There are also businesses

which don’t pay royalties. Commonly they also don’t have any novel ideas.

> It seems that the only use for software patents is in the arms-race

> between the big boys like IBM, Apple and Microsoft. Scrap them and

> there magically becomes no need for them any more. Wonderful.

Software is “just” another (patentable) technology. 

> Please, do the world a favour and let your patent expire.

Please buy my patents and you can have the honour 

(http://www.freewebs.com/dudley-mills/index.htm). I suggest that

that would condemn the idea to being exploited by only the largest,

and not necessarily most interested, developer or to languish in the

two a penny drawer. No benefit to me either. 

G’Day Noah,

> Disclosure is the whole point of the patent system. Without that there

> would be no reason for the patent system to exist. Please remember

> that it is the governments charge to look after the interest of the

> public not that of private enterprises. Disclosure is your part of the

> bargain in exchange for a little bit of the public's freedom.

Wrong. The matter must be disclosed and must be novel and inventive.

> I'd be most grateful if you would point out a major application either

> planned or in operation.

> Sure, <http://www.google.com/>, have you heard of it?

I’d be please if you would point out how Google makes use of Semantic Web concepts.

>I think, perhaps, you chose the wrong free software developer to pick

> a fight with.

Not interested in fights. I used GNU’s bison and yacc 15 years ago to build a

computer language parser and was very pleased with it. I hope the contributors

eventually went on to make some money to support themselves in their old age. 

> Business don't pay royalties because they see a value in an idea, they

> pay royalties because they have to.

A bit of both really; no (sensible) business likes parting with money but all

see that they need to spend to make. They choose to spend to make. Certainly

my licensees (other technology) do.

> Please buy my patents and you can have the honour...

> The honour of what? Buying morally corrupt legal devices from someone

> who spams a community mailing list in the most inappropriate way

> possible so that I can extort and damage the very community I have

> worked for so long to develop and enrich.

Most interested to learn of your Semantic Web products, especially ones which

you think I would damage. It is quite possible that what was seen as threatening or

damaging would actually be beneficial.

If the result is someone buys the patents and implements the concepts then

the Semantic Web will have lurched forward. Then my messages would not

be spam. http://www.freewebs.com/dudley-mills/index.htm

G’Day Dan,

Dan Brickley wrote:

> I sincerely hope you're not going to put this community in the position 

> of having to burn time, effort and money proving the lengthy and well 

> known heritage that lead to what we've lately called the "Semantic Web". 

> As most people in this community know, the design of the Semantic Web 

> has been part of the Web project throughout it's history, while drawing 

> on work that long precedes the Web itself.

Earlier I wrote: “the patents anticipated key aspects of the Semantic Web.”

Now that you prompt me, I see I was too loose with the expression of my

meaning.

I should have written: “the patents anticipated some useful applications

of what became known as ‘the Semantic Web’.”

Those applications are things like advanced yellow pages as one example.

As best I can see, the patents could not be used to ‘extort’ royalties

from developers of web standards or supporting software.

They are focused on the use of contact, classifiction and geographic

data stored in web pages in the construction of searchable databases.

Thanks for helping me come to better expression.

----------------

It would be nice to have a parallel board to post to perhaps called:

“How to Make a Quid (Buck) Commercializing Semantic Web Applications”

where posts like mine and those of implementers were more appropriate.