14 Dec
2004
14 Dec
'04
5:59 a.m.
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Xavier Amatriain <xamat(a)iua.upf.es>
To: iua-mtg(a)iua.upf.es
Subject: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:57:56 +0100
I read that National Circuits sued and won a case against Mathworks for
their Simulink product infringing a number of paterns (September this
year).
According to a summary of the claims (which you can read here
http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf): the dispute was about the term "data
flow diagrams" (which are interpreted) as a graphical computer program
whose execution follows a set of semantic or operational rules as
follows:
1. The order of the operations is not completely specified by the user
2. The order of operations is implied by data interdependencies
3. a node may only execute after all its inputs have become available,
and,
4. outputs are generated after a node completes execution
It turns out that most graphical audio programs such as Max, Pd, OSW or
CLAM's Network Editor may be infringing these patents. Luckily this is
still not valid in Europe and we hope will never be.
Read more about this story at:
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/09/federal_circuit.html
http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/web/all/03B9A7C68030C42D86256…
http://www.mathworks.com/company/pressroom/articles/article7951.html
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/16801
--
/**********************************
********* Xavier Amatriain ********
****** Music Technology Group *****
** IUA- Universitat Pompeu Fabra **
****** www.iua.upf.es/~xamat ******
***********************************/
15 Dec
15 Dec
1:11 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On Tue, 2004-14-12 at 10:59 +0100, Xavier Amatriain wrote:
-----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Xavier Amatriain <xamat(a)iua.upf.es>
> To: iua-mtg(a)iua.upf.es
> Subject: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:57:56 +0100
>
> I read that National Circuits sued and won a case against Mathworks for
> their Simulink product infringing a number of paterns (September this
> year).
>
> According to a summary of the claims (which you can read here
> http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf): the dispute was about the term "data
> flow diagrams" (which are interpreted) as a graphical computer program
> whose execution follows a set of semantic or operational rules as
> follows:
>
> 1. The order of the operations is not completely specified by the user
> 2. The order of operations is implied by data interdependencies
> 3. a node may only execute after all its inputs have become available,
> and,
> 4. outputs are generated after a node completes execution
>
> It turns out that most graphical audio programs such as Max, Pd, OSW or
> CLAM's Network Editor may be infringing these patents. Luckily this is
> still not valid in Europe and we hope will never be.
Om, a modular synth I'm working on, absolutely "infringes" on that
patent as well. The code that would be considered infringing is an
elementary graph-traversal, very similar to a DFS (depth-first search)
algorithm you'd learn in any second-year computer science program. No
kidding you can't execute a node if it's dependencies aren't run!
Geeze..
I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure if America's BS applies, but I'm hardly
worried. What's next, getting sued for infringing on a patent for "a
method of executing sequential lines of code"? Or perhaps evaluating
(2+3)*4 correctly?
There's absolutely no way that someone can't find prior art for this.
It's completely frivolous.
-DR-
2:16 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:11:41 -0500
Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca> wrote:
There's absolutely no way that someone can't
find prior art for this.
It's completely frivolous.
Exactly. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist?
The correct way to deal with patents is here:
http://eca.cx/lad/2004/12/0185.html
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I'm not proud .... We really haven't done everything we could
to protect our customers ... Our products just aren't engineered
for security." -- Brian Valentine, Senior Vice President of
Microsoft's Windows development team
9:44 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On Wed, 2004-15-12 at 17:16 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:11:41 -0500
Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca> wrote:
My knickers are distinctly untwisted. :)
Just saying, I don't think anyone needs to spend any time worrying about
this silly thing.
-DR-
There's absolutely no way that someone
can't find prior art for this.
It's completely frivolous.
Exactly. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist? 
6:27 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On ons, 2004-12-15 at 00:11 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
Om, a modular synth I'm working on, absolutely
"infringes" on that
patent as well. The code that would be considered infringing is an
elementary graph-traversal, very similar to a DFS (depth-first search)
algorithm you'd learn in any second-year computer science program. No
kidding you can't execute a node if it's dependencies aren't run!
Geeze..
Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
An interesting (longish) thread about SoftWire versus LabView (coming up
in january) is here:
http://forums.lavausergroup.org/index.php?showtopic=140&st=0
The patent itself can be found here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p…
%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=4901221.WKU.&OS=PN/4901221&RS=PN/4901221
(you will have to "repair" that link, or pick it up in the thread
mentioned above)
The (smallish) changes in Simulink 6.1 to work around the patent is
here:
http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/simulink/rn/simulink1…
I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure if America's
BS applies, but I'm hardly
worried. What's next, getting sued for infringing on a patent for "a
method of executing sequential lines of code"? Or perhaps evaluating
(2+3)*4 correctly?
Simulink was in court shown to have been designed with the *intent* of
stepping on the patent. At least this jury thought so ...
Although it would be *possible* to use a virtual modular synthesizer in
place of LabView, I believe you would be in the clear. Your goals are
clearly different, no?
There's absolutely no way that someone can't
find prior art for this.
It's completely frivolous.
I get the impression that SoftWires strategy (in january) will go along
the lines of showing that
1) They own relevant patents predating and invalidating the LabView
patent.
2) Furthermore, the method is obvious to anyone skilled in the trade ...
It will take some years before we know the outcome though.
-DR-
--
(
)
c[] IANAL // Jens M Andreasen
7:04 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as
such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
At the beginning I thought that Mathworks didn't tried to claim priort art, and as you
say I read with surprise that they actually did: pages 8-10 of this pdf [1] (which I think
is an overview of the trial process, found here [2] ) They showed two systems Sutherland
and MATRIX (I know nothing about them).
[1] http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf
[2] http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/09/federal_circuit.html
Probably Mathworks did a poor job finding examples of prior art, and they concentrated too
much on defending they where not infringing the patent. Anyway, I find this case very sad.
Hopefully --like Erik said before-- this is a step towards the colapse of the US patents
system...
Pau Arumí
http://www.iua.upf.es/mtg/clam
9:50 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
The reason I forwarded the e-mail is that, as opposed to what has been
said in the list, it turns out that stupid patents can be used to win
(also stupid) court trials. Scary!
On dc, 2004-12-15 at 12:03, Pau Arumi wrote:
--
/**********************************
********* Xavier Amatriain ********
****** Music Technology Group *****
** IUA- Universitat Pompeu Fabra **
****** www.iua.upf.es/~xamat ******
***********************************/
Actually, the
patent is not on graph-traversal as such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
At the beginning I thought that Mathworks didn't tried to claim priort art, and as
you say I read with surprise that they actually did: pages 8-10 of this pdf [1] (which I
think is an overview of the trial process, found here [2] ) They showed two systems
Sutherland and MATRIX (I know nothing about them).
[1] http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf
[2] http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/09/federal_circuit.html
Probably Mathworks did a poor job finding examples of prior art, and they concentrated
too much on defending they where not infringing the patent. Anyway, I find this case very
sad. Hopefully --like Erik said before-- this is a step towards the colapse of the US
patents system...
Pau Arumí
http://www.iua.upf.es/mtg/clam
9:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On Wed, 2004-15-12 at 11:27 +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On ons, 2004-12-15 at 00:11 -0500, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Well, this patent is dated 1986. I'm pretty sure Max existed in some
form or another before then, right?
Anyway, if they ever were to attack any sort of music application, I'm
sure Native Instruments (Reaktor) and Cycling 74 (Max/MSP) might have
something to say about it. :)
-DR-
Om, a modular synth I'm working on,
absolutely "infringes" on that
patent as well. The code that would be considered infringing is an
elementary graph-traversal, very similar to a DFS (depth-first search)
algorithm you'd learn in any second-year computer science program. No
kidding you can't execute a node if it's dependencies aren't run!
Geeze..
Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse. 
10:15 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
Well, this patent is dated 1986. I'm pretty sure
Max existed in some
form or another before then, right?
its not that clear. according to the timeline provided at Ircam,
"Patcher", the predecessor of Max, was started in 1986. i don't know
if patcher had a visual dataflow model or not. Max itself didn't exist
till 1990.
Anyway, if they ever were to attack any sort of music
application, I'm
sure Native Instruments (Reaktor) and Cycling 74 (Max/MSP) might have
something to say about it. :)
2 tiny, tiny companies with very little in the way of cash reserves?
sure, loud like a mouse ...
--p
3:07 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violatepatents]
Paul Davis wrote:
its not that clear. according to the timeline provided
at Ircam,
"Patcher", the predecessor of Max, was started in 1986. i don't know
if patcher had a visual dataflow model or not. Max itself didn't exist
till 1990.
Miller Puckette (the creator of Patcher and PD) probably could answer that
question and probably also knows something about prior art. Relevant articles
can almost certainly be found in Computer Music Journal
(http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/) and the
Prodeedings of the ICMC (http://www.computermusic.org/).
Cheers,
Andreas
5:06 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violatepatents]
Hallo,
Andreas Kuckartz hat gesagt: // Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Paul Davis wrote:
Quoting him:
Another aspect of Max is its graphical user interface (GUI). The Max
GUI has many antecedents. In 1980, while studying under Barry
Vercoe, I saw the Oedit system by Richard Steiger and Roger Hale.
This system, apparently never described in a published paper,
allowed users to design Music 11 orchestras using a visual patch
language. Many other graphical patch languages both for music and
for other applications had appeared by 1987 when I started writing
the Max patching GUI. Although several specific elements might
have been novel at least in the computer music context the overall
idea of a graphical patch language was not.
See "Max at Seventeen", CMJ, online at
http://www.cs.aue.auc.dk/~sts/class/26.4puckette.pdf
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
its not that clear. according to the timeline
provided at Ircam,
"Patcher", the predecessor of Max, was started in 1986. i don't know
if patcher had a visual dataflow model or not. Max itself didn't exist
till 1990.
Miller Puckette (the creator of Patcher and PD) probably could answer that
question and probably also knows something about prior art. Relevant articles
can almost certainly be found in Computer Music Journal
(http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/) and the
Prodeedings of the ICMC (http://www.computermusic.org/). 
11:39 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as
such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
If you want to see just how silly these 'methods' patents can get, here's one
that rocked my own little niche recently:
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/
special-report/02_rw_automation_suit_2.shtml
Not a patent on touchscreens, but on touchscreens, when used a certain way, by
a certain industry, for a certain specific purpose. DRECK! Mares' nests,
one and all. Not that that stops any attorney -- straining at gnats and
swallowing elephants is a required course at law school.
The depresssing thing about it is that a number of automation suppliers have
already fed the energy monster by paying up ($50,000 is the quoted 'license
fee') rather than face the expense and uncertainty of litigation. Talk about
putting a damper on 'innovation'.
Cheers!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WASHINGTON DC: Fifty square miles almost completely surrounded by |
| reality. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1:34 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violate patents]
On ons, 2004-12-15 at 10:39 -0500, Fred Gleason wrote:
Not a patent on touchscreens, but on touchscreens,
when used a certain way, by
a certain industry, for a certain specific purpose. DRECK! Mares' nests,
one and all. Not that that stops any attorney -- straining at gnats and
swallowing elephants is a required course at law school.
I find this passage especially depressing:
"We pay a $300 fee for each touchscreen we sell," said Dave Scott,
president of Scott Studios Corp. and its sister company, Computer
Concepts Corp. "I also paid a $50,000 retroactive fee."
Connell's lawyers contacted Scott Studios more than a year ago about
the alleged patent infringement, Scott said. "Our equipment does not
infringe upon the MDC patent, but we decided agreeing to the royalty
fee was a less-expensive resolution. I still believe the patent is
invalid." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
--
(
)
c[] mvh // Jens M Andreasen
7375
days inactive
7376
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Andreas Kuckartz -
Dave Robillard -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Frank Barknecht -
Fred Gleason -
Jens M Andreasen -
Pau Arumi -
Paul Davis -
Xavier Amatriain