[rules-users] Avoid the patent encumbered "The Decision Model" like the plague

[Mark Proctor]

Avoid the patent encumbered "The Decision Model" like the plague:
http://blog.athico.com/2011/12/decision-model-ip-trap-part-deux.html


      The Decision Model IP Trap - Part Deux

Posted by Mark Proctor
A while back I published this article titled the "The Decision Model 
Trap", http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html. 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 
Knowledge Partners International (KPI) <http://www.kpiusa.com/> who push 
TDM.

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 here 
<http://www.athico.com/TDM/tdm.htm>. The original link is here 
<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>:

I'll quote Jacob below:
"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 modelling community to stay away 
from TDM. "

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 here 
<http://www.kpiusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=170&Itemid=39>:

Lets look at this briefly:
Objectives of the Patent Policy:

  * To ensure that we are able to evolve what we started without risking
    an infringement of someone else's patent.
  * To share the ideas behind The Decision Model in an orderly way.
  * To protect its rigor, hence its reputation."

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.

Then lets get onto their next statement:
"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."

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.

It's old news now that PKI through a partner is trying to infect the OMG 
Decision Model and Notation standard effort, 
http://www.omgwiki.org/dmn-rfp/doku.php. 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.

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.....

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.

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.
"...snip...
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.
...snip...
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.
http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/prologa/
http://ai.ia.agh.edu.pl/wiki/hekate:xtt2"

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

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.

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:
Michael:"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. "

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:

Michael:"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:"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 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.

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? "

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20111223/c29582ab/attachment.html