Suleiman Shehu • Hi Jacob,

Whilst I am looking forward to getting some indications from Larry and Barb on how they plan to use the patent for the TDM that they were awarded on the 6th December 2011 that fact that they were granted a USA patent no 8073801 should not have come as a surprise to the TDM community.

On page 29 of the “The Decision Model” book by Larry and Barb, in the footnote there is a statement which says “The Authors retain the rights related to “Business decision modeling and Management System and method, as US Patent Application No 12/130,605. for certain of the intellectual property represented in the Work. Readers interested in the use of the patent should contact the authors at www.kpiusa.com” And if you look at the patent awarded to KPI you will see that it was first applied in 30th May 2008 using the same reference number given in the TDM book.

Also there was notification on KPI website of the patent application within the copyright section on the website about a provisional patent see http://www.kpiusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84:copyright&catid=40

The fact is that in the 21st century people who invent new ideas, methods and procedures and who do not seek to get a patent leave themselves open for other companies to lay claim to their ideas and get a patent which could then be used against them.

Take Java, millions of programmers use Java, many millions of programs are written in Java. But most people are not aware that there are Java-related patents that are owned by Sun and now owned by Oracle. The fact that Oracle is now suing Google for the unlicensed use of some of its Java related patents is not going to stop people using Java.

Even the Open Source community use patents. Jboss a leading Open Source vendor has many software patents that has not stopped people using Jboss products.

But I do take your point that it would be good to understand the licensing strategy of the TDM patent holders.

Regards,

Suleiman

Nick Broom • Seconded - the athico blog post is certainly a good scare story and the fact that Tom Debevoise (from my aforementioned BPMN post) has echoed his sentiments in reply to that post is going to mean that anyone already doubtful of TDM may well abandon attempts at an early stage.

Mark Proctor • "Even the Open Source community use patents. Jboss a leading Open Source vendor has many software patents that has not stopped people using Jboss products."

I (a JBoss employee) do have patents. But patents in OSS only work if users of the software are granted universal access - such as that built into the Apache Software License that we use in Drools:

"3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."

Mark Proctor • "That post is going to mean that anyone already doubtful of TDM may well abandon attempts at an early stage. "

We are making great strides in building a slick OSS solution built around Jan's research with Prologa and also the XTT2 project. Those are far more extensive than that covered by TDM. The fruits of this are already showing and it's starting to look interesting, by end of 2012 we should be a long way towards fully commoditising the decision table metaphore so it's freely available to all.

I imagine once the software is available and complete enough, it won't take much for someone to write a book around it, and the world will just pass TDM by :)

James Taylor • I certainly think it would be useful for KPI to explain its intent with respect to tools that wish to implement/support TDM. Those of us interested in the approach will, of course, be considering implementing it in various kinds of software. Without some public statement about the likely licensing arrangements it is hard to make any commitment to the approach.

Suleiman Shehu • Hi Mark

I want to first of all congratulate you on your recent USA patent award 7904402 titled “Pluggable dialect for a rules engine”. Well done it is good to see that you respect the rights of any inventor to patent their inventions.

And I am sure that you are not implying that only that only you and JBoss/Red Hat have a moral right to get software patents because you are an open source software company and that your patents are ok because JBoss /Red Hat will only use them “defensively”. Because we all know from history that one man's defensive actions can be interpreted as aggressive by the recipient of such actions.

I note also that Tom Debevoise's company Innovation makes the following claim on its website “Innovations rule technology is patented (GBM 20014430)”. Now I would not want to suggest that Innovations should not have a software patent for its rules technology.

Whilst we wait for a response by the TDM patent holders we should put this patent discussions in perspective. Lets look at another product that is loaded with patents which is a market leader and helped make its company the world largest company by market capitalization. I am referring to Apple and the iPhione and iPad. Now these products are loaded with patents and that has not stopped customers from buying these Apple products. Also it has not stopped software developers from partnering with Apple to build Apps for the Apple Platform.

Even the chip that powers the Apple Platform (ARM) is licensed from UK virtual chip company ARM. ARM is also loaded with patents but will and has licensed ARM technology to virtually all other mobile vendors. Again having a patent does not mean you will not license it.

Therefore there is no reason to assume that because Larry and Barb has the patent for TDM that it will prevent customers from using TDM to solve their problems nor does it mean that software vendors will not be able to licence TDM build their own TDM-related software and hardware products.

Of course it all depends on how the TDM patent will be licensed. But we should stop assuming that because someone has a patent that it must be used negatively to harm the growth of this new industry. At least not without evidence.

I think that we should all wait a while to get Larry and Barb response.

Best regards,

Suleiman

Michael Grohs • @ Mark just to get a better understanding: Are using this LinkedIn group and the patent discussion to advertise for your future software product that is currently under development? If not please state your motivation.

Mark Proctor • "Well done it is good to see that you respect the rights of any inventor to patent their inventions. "

Personally I think patents for software should be abolished. Patents hamper innovation and scientific progression, as a researcher that's something I care deeply about. However we live in a world where software patents exist, so until they are abolished we have no choice other than to acquire patents for defensive purposes only - as guaranteed by the Apache Software License. The quicker the software patent system dies, the better.

"Therefore there is no reason to assume that because Larry and Barb has the patent for TDM that it will prevent customers from using TDM to solve their problems nor does it mean that software vendors will not be able to licence TDM build their own TDM-related software and hardware products."

I don't think that's the problem. The problem is their patent and their involvement within the OMG DMN group creates a conflict of interests that is uncomfortable for anyone involved in DMN.

This is something PKI must be acutely aware of and they have made no effort to clarify their stance and the relation of the patent to DMN. Of course they could remove themselves completely from OMG DMN, removing the conflict of interest and this stories ends. Until they do, those invested and involved in an open standard at OMG DMN have every right to hold them accountable.

Mark Proctor • "@ Mark just to get a better understanding: Are using this LinkedIn group and the patent discussion to advertise for your future software product that is currently under development? If not please state your motivation. "

I think people know who I am, I don't need to declare motivations, I'm pretty transparent.

If it's not obvious to you, I'm the author quoted in the starting comment of this thread:
http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html

I'm just re-iterating what I said there.

Michael Grohs • @Mark still have a problem to understand:
a) What does the recently awarded TDM patent have to do with a software you are about to develop with Jan?
b) How the Decision Table metaphor is related to The Decision Model or the patent that is subject to this trail?
c) I have to apologize that I am not one of the "people" and I still do not understand your motivation. You are right in that you do not have to declare your motivation but it would have been a nice thing to do, especially for those who do not know you and are just like you members of The Decision Model group. Last time when we reached out to you at the BBC for a dialog you mentioned you cannot continue the conversation without legal council, so should we interpret your various posts and membership at this group in a way, that after all, you or Red Hat are interested in a dialog?

Suleiman Shehu • Hi Mark,

Given your hostility for software patents except for open source companies I can now understand your motivations and hostility for the TDM patent. However we live in the real world and whilst I am a strong support of Open Source products I know that proprietary products are not going to disappear any time soon.

As an inventor who has received patents I find your position strange but then world is full of people who believe that they are entitled to special rights which they believe other people should not have.

However I would like to clarify an error you have made about OMG standards and their relationship to software patents. If you look at any OMG Standards document (for the purposes of this post I am now looking at the OMG Business Motivation Standard 1.1 May 2010 and look on the “Use of Specification Terms Conditions & Notices” page in the front of the standards document. Now towards the end of the page you will see a paragraph entitled “PATENTS” with the following OMG Statement:

“The attention of adopters is directed to the possibility that compliance with or adoption of OMG specifications may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. OMG shall not be responsible for identifying patents for which a license may be required by any OMG specification, or for conducting legal inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention. OMG specifications are prospective and advisory only. Prospective users are responsible for protecting themselves against liability for infringement of patents”

The above statement is in all the OMG standard documents I have seen and so I can safely assume this it will also apply to the proposed OMG DMN standard.

So it seems that the OMG also lives in the real world. Having a patent that covers the proposed DMN notation is clearly not a conflict of interest.

Suleiman

Juergen Pitschke • The discussion seems to change focus. Seems to me we need the UN Peace Council soon.

Jacobs question was not about software patents in general. He asked "I believe it would be only helpful if the Decision Model authors openly explain their position regarding this patent to all of us."

I hope this explanation is public very soon. As long as it is not public we all just speculate.
And for sure we all expect a fair-use-policy for the patent.

Happy Xmas!
Juergen

Mark Proctor • "Having a patent that covers the proposed DMN notation is clearly not a conflict of interest."

http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/BPMN_2-0_RFP_07-06-05.pdf
A2.3 Access to Intellectual Property Rights
OMG will not adopt a specification if OMG is aware of any submitter, member or third party which holds a patent, copyright or other intellectual property right (collectively referred to in this policy statement as "IPR") which might be infringed by implementation or recommendation of such specification, unless OMG believes that such IPR owner will grant a license to organisation.

Mark Proctor • "but then world is full of people who believe that they are entitled to special rights which they believe other people should not have."

I claim no special rights, in fact I divulge myself fully from the ability to profit from the patent. Read the terms that I grant you to use my patent under.
"You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work"

The patents are there to make sure no one else patents them. We patent it and then thwart the patent system by gifting it to the world.

Michael Grohs • @ Mark I understand that your and Edson's patent is assigned to your employer Red Hat and not to the World, but correct me if I am wrong. So it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting.

Mark Proctor • "I understand that your and Edson's patent is assigned to your employer Red Hat and not to the World, but correct me if I am wrong. So it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting. "

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. When you have to reach for semantic interpretations it makes you sound bitter and doesn't become an industry professional. I'm not even sure I should dignify it with a response.... but then I wouldn't be me :)

"So it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting"
I don't make it any secret that I'm employee of Red Hat, I'm very proud to work for the worlds number one Open Source company.

But I don't know if that is the point you are trying to make, or if you are trying to belittle me by argueing semantcs on the appropriation of the term "we". Much as Suleiman keeps trying to talk down to me by using terms like "real world" and "special rights". So I guess I should answer both possabilities, neither are becoming for you.

I'm the co-founder and creator of Drools, I did this before joining JBoss. The choice to license Drools under the Apache Software License was mine and done before joining JBoss - JBoss was later acquired by Red Hat. It is this license, that I chose, that grants those free and perpetual rights. In fact it is this license that ensures that neither I nor Red Hat nor anyone else contributing to Drools project may file a patent that is not covered under this free and perpetual rights, when that patent relates to Drools.

While at Red Hat it was my choice to file the patent and my choice to do the work necessary for the patent, I could have chosen not to file a patent. Edson also had those same personal choices and we did the work together.

I would say considering those choices that I made I have a write to use the term "we". We as in myself, Edson and Red Hat.

"and not to the World"
You are trying to argue the points of assignment and usage and gift? I'm not sure which part of the following you don't get:
"a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work" "

It doesn't get more "gifting" than this. Well maybe it can. Having watched a user gorge themselves on christmas pudding, mince pies and port. I could wrap the patent in silver paper with stars on it, tie a red bow around it, put on my Red Fedora and climb down the chimney and ram it down their throats. Is that "gifty" enough for you? :) to clarify the term "their" I mean "the world".

......next?

Lee Lambert • Michael, I believe it is important to give Larry and Barb recognition for their TDM invention. Should we have concerns about this patent having impact on the OMG DMN progress? Perhaps Larry or Barb could step up to address Jacob's request for clarification on the patent and their intensions. This seems like a reasonable request.

Michael Grohs • @ Mark Thank you for the clarification! I wanted to make sure I had the facts straight.

Suleiman Shehu • Hi Mark,

You originally said “The problem is their patent and their involvement within the OMG DMN group creates a conflict of interests that is uncomfortable for anyone involved in DMN. “

I then said that the OMG can provide a specification that is covered by a patent and I produced the evidence for my position from the OMG Patents notice that exists on every OMG Standard.

Then your offered as your rebuttal to my argument the following quote from the OMG:

A2.3 Access to Intellectual Property Rights
OMG will not adopt a specification if OMG is aware of any submitter, member or third party which holds a patent, copyright or other intellectual property right (collectively referred to in this policy statement as "IPR") which might be infringed by implementation or recommendation of such specification, unless OMG believes that such IPR owner will grant a license to organisation.

Now if you read the above carefully you will see the word “Unless”. Now that is a very important word. The above OMG quote is logically equivalent to saying “That the OMG can adopt a specification, being aware that it is covered by a patent provided that the owner of the patent is prepared to licence it to the OMG.

And this is precisely the point I was making. We should not assume without evidence that the owners of the TDM licence will not licence on fair terms to TDM practitioners and software vendors. If the KPI TDM notation is accepted by the OMG it is within the power of the TDM patent owners to grant the OMG a licence for Decision notation components of the TDM patents.

Where I objected to you is in your original statement which seems too imply that owning a TDM patent MUST by necessity be a conflict of interest because the OMG would never adopt a specification based on TDM covered by a patent. Now the rebuttal you sent me says that this would only be so if there was no licence was granted from the TDM owners. And we have no evidence at this time to support this conjecture. You may have your fears but that is not evidence.

Now we are both very passionate men who believe strongly in our respective positions. And I respect your rights and your contributions to Open Source and to rules technologies. And I do really mean this Mark. I would however ask that you give the TDM owners the opportunity to give their response to your fears and concerns.

I am sure that your concerns and fears have been noted.

I see RedHat and Drools has a major potential partner for TDM implementation and it would be sad if our respective strong position adversely affected what could be a beneficial partnership for our industry.

I am sure that your fears will be addressed and I look forward to working with you on many TDM projects in the future as I really love the way you have integrated JBPM 5.1 with Drools 5.

All the best and have a Merry Xmas and Happy New Year

Suleiman

James Taylor • 18 comments later we still don't have anything from KPI on their intent. They have been awarded a patent. A patent that anyone developing software that supports TDM would, I think, be in breach of. What do they intend to do about software that already supports TDM (Jacob and Lee for sure have products in this category) and how would those of us who might consider supporting TDM in the future in a piece of software navigate the patent issue?
I don't think anyone here is asking KPI to give up its patent. We just want to understand how KPI see licensing / enforcing it with respect to software and what, if anything, KPI intends to do with respect to OMG's restrictions on patented material in standards.
Michael - can you answer those questions?