<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Avoid the patent encumbered "The Decision Model" like the plague:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.athico.com/2011/12/decision-model-ip-trap-part-deux.html">http://blog.athico.com/2011/12/decision-model-ip-trap-part-deux.html</a><br>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
The Decision Model IP Trap - Part Deux
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
<div class="post-header-line-1"><span class="post-author vcard">
Posted by
<span class="fn">Mark Proctor</span>
</span>
</div>
</div>
A while back I published this article titled the “The Decision Model
Trap”, <a
href="http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html">http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html</a>.
In short it highlighted the dangers of adopting a patented
methodology and my opinion on Red Hat's stance on the matter. The
patent is owned by the <a href="http://www.kpiusa.com/">Knowledge
Partners International (KPI)</a> who push TDM.<br>
<br>
My article was referenced in a thread, started by Jacob Feldman from
Open Rules, in a linkedin group for “The Decision Model”. It's a
closed group, A copy is provided online <a
href="http://www.athico.com/TDM/tdm.htm">here</a>. The original
link is <a
href="http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3394865&type=member&item=86029666&qid=d473e78c-2266-421d-b265-24ea39e88d5b&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_3394865">here</a>:<br>
<br>
I'll quote Jacob below:<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">“First I learned about a possible
patent for The Decision Model from Mark Proctor – see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html">http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html</a>. 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.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">However, on Dec. 6, 2011 USPTO
apparently granted a patent to Larry and Barb – see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8073801.html">http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8073801.html</a>. 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 modelling
community to stay away from TDM. “</span><br>
<br>
The thread turned hostile with a KPI representative demanding I
clarify my motivations and then resorting to belittling me – but
I'll come back to that later. The result was that eventually KPI
made an announcement on their objectives and intentions with regards
to the patent and TDM. The link for this is <a
href="http://www.kpiusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=170&Itemid=39">here</a>:<br>
<br>
Lets look at this briefly:<br>
Objectives of the Patent Policy:<br>
<ul>
<li>To ensure that we are able to evolve what we started without
risking an infringement of someone else's patent.</li>
<li>To share the ideas behind The Decision Model in an orderly
way.</li>
<li>To protect its rigor, hence its reputation.”</li>
</ul>
With the current insanity of the various patent systems, having to
play the patent game, just to protect yourself is a reality. However
restricting 3rd party use of that patent is not necessary to achieve
the later two goals. Trademark and certification is a perfectly
adequate, if not far superior and more effective way to achieve
those goals. Unless they have other objectives, not listed, I invite
them to license their patent under terms similar to that in the
Apache Software License.<br>
<br>
Then lets get onto their next statement:<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"Vendors who provide Open Source
Software, and who wish to incorporate TDM can obtain a
royalty-free license for Open Source software. There will be a
certification fee and process for Open Source vendors who desire
this optional software certification."</span><br>
<br>
Talk about the classic hunny trap. Ring ring, ring ring.....
"hello?... Hey KPI it's 2002 calling, they want their business ideas
back". For those that don't get the joke it's a play on the "hey
hunny, its the 80s calling, they want their hair back" :) Seriously
the world has moved on, it's clued up, they don't fall for that clap
trap any more. KPI, there is an awesome website, that covered the
SCO débâcle, called groklaw.net - very recommended reading. If you
are an OSS vendor and take PKI up on their offer, you aren't not
Open Source - end of story. Just don't do it to yourself, you
deserve better, your customers deserve better.<br>
<br>
It's old news now that PKI through a partner is trying to infect the
OMG Decision Model and Notation standard effort, <a
href="http://www.omgwiki.org/dmn-rfp/doku.php">http://www.omgwiki.org/dmn-rfp/doku.php</a>.
Private emails have been sent between the various heavyweights in
the OMG process. I think the general sentiment was "not a chance in
hell". So that's one nail in the coffin. A proprietary and
encumbered methodology will die when faced with an un-encumbered
official and open standard.<br>
<br>
They may however try to argue that their patent covers the resulting
DMN standard, regardless of whether the DMG group accepts their
proposal. The result on the industry in general could be chilling. I
would urge PKI to re-read groklaw.net about what happened to SCO
when they tried to enforce bogus patents. Yes that's right,
“SC...Who?” - it's doubtful your reputations and company brand would
survive if you became hostile on an open standard and/or an open
source implementation of that standard. RIP TDM.....<br>
<br>
So let's now get back to that linked in forum posting. As the thread
was started by quoting my initial blog, when someone asked what
impact this could have on the industry, I felt that I had every
right to re-iterate a key point from the article. That while TDM
continues to be patented the industry will move around and beyond
it, and that the work we are doing lifting from the extensive
research made available in the Prologa and XTT2 will also make it's
patent irrelevant.<br>
<br>
Michael Grohs, VP of Business Development @ KPI, jumped in demanding
I declare my motivations – as if I was some how being underhanded. I
don't think he had taken the time to read my article. I think it
makes my stance and motivations very clear. But then I believe he
was more interested in posturing than substance. I'll show two key
points from the article, I think they show my stance and motivations
pretty clearly.<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">“...snip...</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Open Source and Patents do not
mix. When you get software from Red Hat you are guaranteed its
100% Open Source, not maybe OS or partly OS. From top to bottom,
inside and out 100% OS goodness. </span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">...snip...</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">In the mean time we in the Drools
team will continue to take our inspiration from the excellent and
unencumbered research projects; Prologa and XTT2.</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/prologa/">http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/prologa/</a></span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ai.ia.agh.edu.pl/wiki/hekate:xtt2”">http://ai.ia.agh.edu.pl/wiki/hekate:xtt2”</a></span><br>
<br>
The thread continued to regress into noise. With further indications
that I was trying to be underhanded, by demanding I declare my
motivations. It was insinuated that I don't live in the real world,
that the patents I have through Red Hat make me hypercritical for
demanding “special rights”:<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">“but then world is full of people
who believe that they are entitled to special rights which they
believe other people should not have. “</span><br>
<br>
In general there seemed to be a lack of understanding on the use of
defensive patents within OSS, particularly on how they have
virtually no restrictions, beyond that defensive clause – as
specified in the Apache Software License. There also seemed to be a
lack of understanding on the walled garden patents create, shutting
off the OSS research world - which is why I oppose this so
vehemently.<br>
<br>
Finally Michael, a VP @PKI, just decided to get full out snotty on
me. I couldn't figure out if he was trying to belittle me or
indicate that I was being underhanded by concealing that I work for
Red Hat – or maybe both. I guess when you have nothing of substance
to say, just use insults:<br>
Michael:<span style="font-style: italic;">”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. “</span><br>
<br>
I apologise in advance for the slightly over pompous use of “I”.
Those that know me, know that while I evangelise the technology,
that I will big up the Drools community in general and it's
achievements - I do not try to add grandeur directly to my
personage, that actually I'm a little shy of direct attention. I
believe Michael thought I was some peon of a developer, scuttling
along to my masters commands. So given the circumstances, I felt
that a point should be made:<br>
<br>
Michael:<span style="font-style: italic;">"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. "</span><br>
<br>
mark:<span style="font-style: italic;">"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 :)
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"So it is actually Red Hat who
does the gifting" </span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">But I don't know if that is the
point you are trying to make, or if you are trying to belittle me
by arguing semantics 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
possibilities, neither are becoming for you. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"and not to the World" </span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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: </span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"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" " </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">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". </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">......next? “</span><br>
<br>
Anyway I'm looking forward to what Jan Vanthienen, one of the
decision table godfathers, has to say on the matter in the new year.
I'm guessing that he's not pleased that someone took his work,
changed the names used in the terminology and patented it.
<br>
</body>
</html>