The Decision Model Patent?
First I learned about a possible patent for The Decision Model from Mark Proctor – see http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html.
But it was impossible to find any references to it on the web. Besides,
neither Larry nor Barb ever mentioned anything about the patent (at
least to me). So, I thought that was just a misunderstanding.
However, on Dec. 6, 2011 USPTO apparently granted a patent to Larry and Barb – see http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8073801.html.
I believe it would be only helpful if the Decision Model authors openly
explain their position regarding this patent to all of us. Otherwise,
such a “holiday present” may scare the entire decision modeling
community to stay away from TDM.
Nick Broom, Emmanuel Ferret like this
You, Nick Broom, Emmanuel Ferret like this
32 comments • Jump to most recent comments
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?
Mark Proctor • "Michael Grohs • @ Mark Thank you for the clarification! I wanted to make sure I had the facts straight. "
No worries, glad to be of serivce. I'll try and clarify things for you more soon in my blog. Too much noise here, no one will read this thread now. But you've given me plenty of fodder.
The Decision Model IP Trap - Part Deux... coming soon.
http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html (part one)
MichaelUnfollow Follow Michael
Michael Grohs • @ James This was a quite interesting day today. I never would have thought that the creator of Drools would spend so much time at our LinkeIn group. Patents are a very controversial topic and it was interesting to listen to some of the contributors' different view points and positions. It is the prerogative of the inventors of TDM to choose the time and venue when to make a policy statement.
JamesUnfollow Follow James
James Taylor • @Michael of course it is their prerogative. Of course those companies that have built Visio or Excel templates to support their use of TDM could be in breach, anyone using Lee or Jacob's software could be in breach and none of us will know until they make sure an announcement. I for one will be interested in hearing it.
Mark Proctor • "I never would have thought that the creator of Drools would spend so much time at our LinkeIn group. "
What can I say, it's christmas and I had some spare time. Plus you pissed off a lot of peope in the industry, people I like. So figured if you are gonna get snotty and obtuse on me, you deserve what you get.
Mark Proctor • "MUST by necessity be a conflict of interest"
Until KPI declares the non-descrimatory and commercially reasonably terms, their involvement will remain in conflict, and I will continue to call them out on this.
"If the submitter owns IPR to which an use of a specification based upon its submission would necessarily be subject, it must certify to the Business Committee that it will make a suitable license available to any user on non- discriminatory and commercially reasonable terms, to permit development and commercialisation of an implementation that includes such IPR."
After they do declare these terms to OMG. While I will rescind the charge of conflict I'll continue to lobby OMG like hell, to not accept and publish a patent encumbered standard. Tbh I don't think they have a chance in hell of that happening, there is simply no reason for OMG to do so, when there is so much existing and excellent prior art for them to draw from with Prologa and XTT2.
Even forgetting OMG for a moment, I'll do everything I can to evanglise to potential adopters the dangers of patent encumbered methodologies and the lockin this brings. There is no "live and let live" when it comes to Open Source and patent encumbered standards, I think my original blog post made my position on that very clear.
"I see RedHat and Drools has a major potential partner for TDM implementation "
If KPI are willing to make the patent available under a free and perpual basis, similar in terms to those found in the Apache Software License, we can be best friends and I'll promote TDM gladly and loudly. However until they do and if they continue to push snake oil onto this communty, we'll be mortal enemies :)
EmmanuelUnfollow Follow Emmanuel
Emmanuel Ferret • In order to understand the “INTENT”, is it possible to get the “CONTENT” of the US Patent Application No 12/130,605 about ”Business decision modeling and Management System and method” ?
NickUnfollow Follow Nick
Nick Broom • It's getting hot in here......where's Jay Sorenson when you need him :)
I would imagine that with the significant amount of content in this thread, Larry and Barb will be taking their time to put together a suitable response, although maybe a quick note to say that this is being done would be a good interim step?
I would suspect that everyone is involved with decision modelling and business rules expression for one purpose - to deliver something to a customer. I believe that is ultimately the basis for this whole thread - how does the patent affect the ability to deliver to our customers?
As Mark mentioned, this has "given him plenty of fodder", however, I would hope that any follow up will also see what the outputs are from Larry and Barb in order to provide a balanced view of the issue? As he points out, this thread may well have reached a saturation point and we're getting diminishing returns without the key input from the creators.
That said, it's good that the subject matter is generating such significant emotion (unless it gets to the point where it becomes unproductive) - I would suspect that's a far better position to be in than for topics to produce a virtual tumbleweed....
MichaelUnfollow Follow Michael
Michael Grohs • @ Emmanuel the patent text can be found at http://1.usa.gov/t7CT5I published by the USPTO
BarbUnfollow Follow Barb
Barb Von Halle • FWIW, the OMG has always been aware of the patent. We have had many conversations with Paul Vincent in how patented ideas that are interesting can spur creativity in the OMG. For more information on that, follow the OMG progress.
The patent has never been a secret, as Suleiman points out, it is referenced in the book (Thank you, Suleiman). A statement of intent is coming perhaps today. If you sense a delay, it is because it is important to see the final acceptance from USPTO (which does not move quickly) to understand precisely the parts that they accepted. Only recently did we know that.
In the meantime, as some of you know, we have not only worked with vendors but have promoted products that support aspects of TDM. We intend to continue to do so and to support standards groups in moving toward the idea of "Decision Management" as something that is business-focused, needs technology support, and may have various tentacles to it (from business governance to automation). Based on the overwhelming success and interest in TDM worldwide to date (and this lengthy thread), TDM has spurred interesting thoughts, comments, and innovations. And much of it even before there was any software for it. That seems amazing to me in this technology-driven world!
MichaelUnfollow Follow Michael
Michael Grohs • Public statement from Barbara and Larry related to TDM patent discussion:
We are astonished (and humbled) at the attention The Decision Model patent is receiving. We are perplexed at the confusion surrounding it. The patent has never been a secret. In fact, it is mentioned in our book, now entering its third year since publication.
The confusion seems to be arising from persons not involved with the patent. We are assuming that these people are of good character and do not intend to misrepresent our motivations for the patent. They are simply uninformed or mistaken.
Patents are an important part of American culture, aiming to protect and share new ideas and to grant rights to patent holders for a limited amount of time, protected by the US Constitution. While it is true that the patent system can be abused, it serves a noble purpose and most patent holders do not have sinister agendas. Not every new idea is accepted by the US PTO. It can be a long and expensive process. Each patent holder has individual reasons for investing in the patent submittal process. It is unfair of outside parties to represent the motivations of a particular patent holder.
To keep it simple, our motivations for the patent are threefold:
(1) to share the ideas behind The Decision Model in an orderly way,
(2) to protect its rigor, hence its reputation, and
(3) to ensure that we are able to evolve what we started without risking an
infringement of someone else’s patent.
We have seen implementations that fall short on its rigor and these usually result in less-than-optimal success. These implementations have the potential to dilute the full value and benefits of The Decision Model as described in the patent. On the other hand, we have had huge successes in most major industries with The Decision Model when its rigor is well understood and followed.
That said, we have a policy by which we enable practitioners and end-user organizations to freely use, at no cost, The Decision Model. To support them, we have provided – in addition to the book – templates and white papers, and a great deal of additional materials at no cost. For software vendors we have policies to enable them to utilize aspects of the patent in ways that ensure adherence to the model. In fact, we have worked with several software vendors in the past few years, including Open Source vendors. Some of you have read about these vendors’ products in our published articles, seen us co-present with them at conferences, participate in press releases with them, include them in webinars, and use their products at our client sites.
Some of the people who have recently published their opinions about the patent have never approached us to learn more about it. This explains why they made inaccurate assumptions, leading to confusion. We are today posting a policy statement on our website ( http://www.kpiusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=170&Itemid=39 ); we are happy to provide additional information to anybody who has additional questions. We are very well aware of the OMG policies regarding patents, and freely discussed The Decision Model patent with the OMG; we are among many organizations that are participating in the DMN process that have patented intellectual property, and see no reason that we should be singled out in this respect.
We hope this personal note adds clarity for those of you interested in promoting and practicing The Decision Model. Apparently, the emotion emerging from external parties indicates that the content of the patent is of wide interest and value. For that, we are grateful, excited, and again humbled.
Barbara & Larry
JacobUnfollow Follow Jacob
Jacob Feldman • Barbara & Larry,
Thank you for your clarification. It is good to know that Open Source vendors "who wish to incorporate TDM can obtain a royalty-free license for Open Source software" with "optional software certification".
Jacob
JayUnfollow Follow Jay
Jay Sorenson • Nick:
I'm right here, how may I be of service to you?
Regards,
Jay Sorenson