Re: Research Process Patenting

Hello to all,

I'm a bit concerned and I thought this as good a place as any to open
the conversation.

I'm getting a little concerned about patents that cover a process of
doing something. Recently, universities have been making advancements in
all kinds of things that can benefit medicine (growing many kinds of
drugs in mushrooms, for instance).

It dawned on me, what is to stop Redmond from patenting studying social
networks based on link relationships, or so many methods therein that
they can hold coin over anyone that makes products based on this
research? In other words, if you research, you pay Microsoft if you plan
to publish your work because your method was 'similar' to theirs.

Lets say I came up with a new way to map social networks quickly into
some kind of tree that shows how each member is likely to monetize
(would not be hard). Can someone please assure me that this could not be
patented if I did it?

Many universities are getting money to study complex networks. Is this a
non concern or should someone be making a stink now before it happens?

Kindly
--Tim

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> I'm a bit concerned and I thought this as good a place as any to open
> the conversation.

Why do you think this is a good place to open this conversation? It
isn't: this isn't a legal forum, and we claim no special expertise in
patent law.

> I'm getting a little concerned about patents that cover a process of
> doing something.

Sorry, that ship has sailed. If you want to change that, you need to
lobby your government to try to get out of its treaty obligations.
As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.

So please have this conversation elsewhere. There _are_ fora where
this issue has already been discussed in rather a lot of detail, so I
suspect a little time with Google would be something that would
benefit you.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner

Tim,

> It dawned on me, what is to stop Redmond from patenting studying social
> networks based on link relationships, or so many methods therein that
> they can hold coin over anyone that makes products based on this
> research? In other words, if you research, you pay Microsoft if you plan
> to publish your work because your method was 'similar' to theirs.

I don't think anyone on this list is capable of answering your
questions. Try SFLC?

--Josh

On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:

> As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.
>

Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.

United States tax exempt organizations are permitted to lobby
legislatures, within limits. This is how it is possible for United
States universities, and other tax exempt organizations to lobby for
particular laws. There is a prohibition against tax-exempt groups
campaigning for a candidate for office. A lot different.

In general, tax exempt organizations are permitted to talk about the
topic of lobbying for, or potentially lobbying for something, or
analyzing the process of lobbying, without worry, since talk costs
nothing, without jepardizing its tax status. If the typical organization
gets serious about lobbying efforts, generally it elects to use an
expenditures-reporting test, so that it may know what the measure and
threshold is, and plan for staying below the relevant threshold.

For "non-electing" organizations the determination on lobbying is based
upon a review of all activities, so that "no substantial portion" of
the organization's activities may be lobbying.

See the U.S. Internal Revenue web site for brief background:

- Expenditures test election:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
- The election form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5768.pdf

- The "substantial part test, for non-electing organizations:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html

~Mark Jones

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:00 -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.
> >

I feel that I must clarify some words that did not appear in my previous
and original post.

I did not suggest an action. I did not suggest lobbying. I did not
suggest SPI become involved. I am merely looking for information and
asking if others share my concern.

If I am not permitted to do that openly on a list of like minded people,
then I can only submit that the list is broken and of little use at
present.

Kindly,
--Tim

>
> Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.
>
> United States tax exempt organizations are permitted to lobby
> legislatures, within limits. This is how it is possible for United
> States universities, and other tax exempt organizations to lobby for
> particular laws. There is a prohibition against tax-exempt groups
> campaigning for a candidate for office. A lot different.
>
> In general, tax exempt organizations are permitted to talk about the
> topic of lobbying for, or potentially lobbying for something, or
> analyzing the process of lobbying, without worry, since talk costs
> nothing, without jepardizing its tax status. If the typical organization
> gets serious about lobbying efforts, generally it elects to use an
> expenditures-reporting test, so that it may know what the measure and
> threshold is, and plan for staying below the relevant threshold.
>
> For "non-electing" organizations the determination on lobbying is based
> upon a review of all activities, so that "no substantial portion" of
> the organization's activities may be lobbying.
>
> See the U.S. Internal Revenue web site for brief background:
>
> - Expenditures test election:
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
> - The election form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5768.pdf
>
> - The "substantial part test, for non-electing organizations:
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html
>
> ~Mark Jones
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

To further proactive thought, here are some things to think about.

Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely software and works
created to serve the public interest, and

Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely research and works
derived from it created to serve the public interest, and

such things need to be thought about unless we're content to get angry
reading about new wretched patents on slashdot. We can, you know,
anticipate the need for change and make room should unfortunate things
occur.

I am not implying action is even needed. I'm attempting to determine if
my concerns even have foundation.

I must ask for your kindness in helping me to understand, where was that
not abundantly clear?

Kindly,
--Tim

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:00 -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.
> >
>
>
> Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.
>
> United States tax exempt organizations are permitted to lobby
> legislatures, within limits. This is how it is possible for United
> States universities, and other tax exempt organizations to lobby for
> particular laws. There is a prohibition against tax-exempt groups
> campaigning for a candidate for office. A lot different.
>
> In general, tax exempt organizations are permitted to talk about the
> topic of lobbying for, or potentially lobbying for something, or
> analyzing the process of lobbying, without worry, since talk costs
> nothing, without jepardizing its tax status. If the typical organization
> gets serious about lobbying efforts, generally it elects to use an
> expenditures-reporting test, so that it may know what the measure and
> threshold is, and plan for staying below the relevant threshold.
>
> For "non-electing" organizations the determination on lobbying is based
> upon a review of all activities, so that "no substantial portion" of
> the organization's activities may be lobbying.
>
> See the U.S. Internal Revenue web site for brief background:
>
> - Expenditures test election:
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
> - The election form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5768.pdf
>
> - The "substantial part test, for non-electing organizations:
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html
>
> ~Mark Jones
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

I think I found the problem. This is not a list of like minded people.

Next time, you might consider using fewer words a little more
effectively.

Kindly,
--Tim

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 13:23 +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> To further proactive thought, here are some things to think about.
>
> Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely software and works
> created to serve the public interest, and
>
> Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely research and works
> derived from it created to serve the public interest, and
>
> such things need to be thought about unless we're content to get angry
> reading about new wretched patents on slashdot. We can, you know,
> anticipate the need for change and make room should unfortunate things
> occur.
>
> I am not implying action is even needed. I'm attempting to determine if
> my concerns even have foundation.
>
> I must ask for your kindness in helping me to understand, where was that
> not abundantly clear?
>
> Kindly,
> --Tim
>
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:00 -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote:
> > On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> >
> > > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> > > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.
> >
> > United States tax exempt organizations are permitted to lobby
> > legislatures, within limits. This is how it is possible for United
> > States universities, and other tax exempt organizations to lobby for
> > particular laws. There is a prohibition against tax-exempt groups
> > campaigning for a candidate for office. A lot different.
> >
> > In general, tax exempt organizations are permitted to talk about the
> > topic of lobbying for, or potentially lobbying for something, or
> > analyzing the process of lobbying, without worry, since talk costs
> > nothing, without jepardizing its tax status. If the typical organization
> > gets serious about lobbying efforts, generally it elects to use an
> > expenditures-reporting test, so that it may know what the measure and
> > threshold is, and plan for staying below the relevant threshold.
> >
> > For "non-electing" organizations the determination on lobbying is based
> > upon a review of all activities, so that "no substantial portion" of
> > the organization's activities may be lobbying.
> >
> > See the U.S. Internal Revenue web site for brief background:
> >
> > - Expenditures test election:
> > http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
> > - The election form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5768.pdf
> >
> > - The "substantial part test, for non-electing organizations:
> > http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html
> >
> > ~Mark Jones
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spi-general mailing list
> > Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:00:08PM -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:

> > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.

> Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.

Thanks for the correction (which is not legal advice from you,
right?). I'm not a lawyer -- especially in the U.S., since that's
what's relevant -- and I was merely parroting the line as I've
understood it (which is why I qualified my remark). That said, this
is still the wrong venue for this discussion, because we don't have
the collective legal expertise to discuss the question intelligently,
IMO.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."
--Bruce Schneier

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:23:46PM +0800, Tim Post wrote:

> I am not implying action is even needed. I'm attempting to determine if
> my concerns even have foundation.

And my main point was that, if you want to determine that, you need
to go to some forum with experts who know lots about U.S. patent law,
which is the law relevant to this organisation. This forum is not
that one. I think Josh Berkus suggested one that might be.

I ask that this list not become a forum for aimless speculation on
every topic that might conceivably be of interest to those interested
in every aspect of supporting or promoting free or open source
software. SPI is a corporation that should be directed towards some
end (which end is a decision for the members to make in choosing
board members). I don't know about others, but I am already
inundated with mail from lists that frequently wander into topics not
germaine to the list purpose. I am hoping in earnest that this list
not become another one. So, while a concrete proposal, "I think X is
a problem, and SPI has the mandate and expertise to do Y about it,"
are fodder for the list, general discussion along the lines of, "I
don't know whether X is a problem, and I want to have a speculative
discussion among non-experts in the field," is not, IMO.

That was all I was trying to say. Now that I've tried to say it
again, I'll shut up about the matter.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin