[math-fun] Matthew Cook and his proof about Rule 110
Harold writes: << ... Cook's web page at CalTech has been "disappeared" (replaced by a "FORBIDDEN" notice, that is)...
Can anyone explain how a mathematical theorem can be protected intellectual property? If there's one thing I thought I knew about intellectual property law, it was that *ideas* per se could not be protected. I've never heard of another situation where a theorem was considered proprietary. --Dan
Mensaje citado por: asimovd@aol.com:
Can anyone explain how a mathematical theorem can be protected intellectual property?
We still don't know whether that's the problem, although it is a likely candidate. Whatever he had visible through Yahoo! or Google hadn't changed in some time, but it's now verboten. The problem here is that "work for hire" aspect. I've seen what was supposed to be the confidentiality and intellectual property agreement which he apparently signed when hiring on at WRI; I've signed similar in the course of my various employments. His work was sufficiently original that the agreement should have been redrafted, but apparently it wasn't. How can you hold an employee responsible for a "trade secret" when it was a highly original secret which the employee himself generated? But as Dan H. has reminded us, we aren't trade secret or copyright lawyers, so we can only stand aside and watch the circus. And hope it is a false alarm. - hvm ------------------------------------------------- Obtén tu correo en www.correo.unam.mx UNAMonos Comunicándonos
But highly original trade secrets are the ones most valuable to the company. There would be little controversy about an over employee who discovered a novel way to design a vaccine, or a practical molecular scale computer. Here's a question for Mathematica users. Does your lisencing agreement give Wolfram any rights to or require royalty payments for any discoveries or inventions arising from your use of Mathematica? --- mcintosh@servidor.unam.mx wrote:
His work was sufficiently original that the agreement should have been redrafted, but apparently it wasn't. How can you hold an employee responsible for a "trade secret" when it was a highly original secret which the employee himself generated?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Mensaje citado por: Eugene Salamin <gene_salamin@yahoo.com>:
But highly original trade secrets are the ones most valuable to the company. There would be little controversy about an over employee who discovered a novel way to design a vaccine, or a practical molecular scale computer.
I think I stand corrected on the question which provoked this response, and indeed I thought about that while walking home after sending the message. An example which came to mind is the controversy between Wm. Shockley and the group which he recruited to manufacture transistors. Shockley wanted to forge ahead with the field effect transistor whereas his boys opted for metal oxide semiconductors, with ensuing consequences. The semiconductor industry is replete with instances of employees who broke away to form a new company, taking the techniques which they had learned or developed with them. The difference with the present case seems to lie in the impression which the employee may or may not have had that he was working in an academic environment, and the relevance of any discoveries or inventions he may have made to the company's stated business purposes. This was a sensitive point when I worked in industry, but there was a review process whereby an employee could declare an invention and either have it returned to him (with the obligation to file his own patent application and pay for it himself) or have the company sponsor it in return for some modest royalty payments. Needless to say, none of us ever invented anything sufficiently interesting to invoke the process, but surely it was used now and then and the company had a reason for creating and maintaining it. Here is where some expertise in commercial law is called for; apparently the owner of the company (WRI) set up a private study group to further some of his personal interests, separate and distinct from manufacturing and distributing a software product. So we are left to speculate on the value of an abstract mathematical theorem, as Dan A. put it, to the company's business. Nonetheless I suspect that none of this is any of our business; nevertheless it must certainly be permissible to express the hope that the principals in this controversy will settle their differences and let the rest of us enjoy the fruits of their labors. - hvm ------------------------------------------------- Obtén tu correo en www.correo.unam.mx UNAMonos Comunicándonos
As I understand it, Matthew Cook's job was to prove that Mathematica's algorithms worked. Mathematica's algorithms are considered trade secrets because they allow Mathematica a competitive advantage. Since we don't know his proof, it is hard to say, but his proof might be useful in applying Rule 110 for various computations or something. Although, I guess the same sort of arguement could probably be applied to any work that Matthew Cook does. Gershon Bialer ----- Original Message ----- From: <mcintosh@servidor.unam.mx> To: <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Matthew Cook and his proof about Rule 110
Mensaje citado por: Eugene Salamin <gene_salamin@yahoo.com>:
But highly original trade secrets are the ones most valuable to the company. There would be little controversy about an over employee who discovered a novel way to design a vaccine, or a practical molecular scale computer.
I think I stand corrected on the question which provoked this response, and indeed I thought about that while walking home after sending the message. An example which came to mind is the controversy between Wm. Shockley and the group which he recruited to manufacture transistors. Shockley wanted to forge ahead with the field effect transistor whereas his boys opted for metal oxide semiconductors, with ensuing consequences. The semiconductor industry is replete with instances of employees who broke away to form a new company, taking the techniques which they had learned or developed with them.
The difference with the present case seems to lie in the impression which the employee may or may not have had that he was working in an academic environment, and the relevance of any discoveries or inventions he may
have
made to the company's stated business purposes. This was a sensitive point when I worked in industry, but there was a review process whereby an employee could declare an invention and either have it returned to him (with the obligation to file his own patent application and pay for it himself) or have the company sponsor it in return for some modest royalty payments. Needless to say, none of us ever invented anything sufficiently interesting to invoke the process, but surely it was used now and then and the company had a reason for creating and maintaining it.
Here is where some expertise in commercial law is called for; apparently the owner of the company (WRI) set up a private study group to further some of his personal interests, separate and distinct from manufacturing and distributing a software product. So we are left to speculate on the value of an abstract mathematical theorem, as Dan A. put it, to the company's business.
Nonetheless I suspect that none of this is any of our business; nevertheless it must certainly be permissible to express the hope that the principals in this controversy will settle their differences and let the rest of us enjoy the fruits of their labors.
- hvm
------------------------------------------------- Obtén tu correo en www.correo.unam.mx UNAMonos Comunicándonos
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (4)
-
asimovd＠aol.com -
Eugene Salamin -
Gershon Bialer -
mcintosh＠servidor.unam.mx