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