scoop!! scandal!! wolfram sued own employee over rule 110 proof!!

V.Z.Nuri

unread,

Jul 3, 2002, 6:25:16 PM7/3/02

to

rule 110 & legal action!!
---

Ive been hunting down the proof
that CA rule 110 is turing complete, and ran into this
very unexpected development. hope to spur discussion
of the implications here.

first a little background.
usually I can track down many papers very quickly on the internet
with the help of google & citeseer. and more researchers
are putting up their old papers on their own web sites.
(sometimes researchers put papers on their own web
sites & home pages that are technically
copyright by journals or in books!)
there is some tension between researchers & publishers
right now in this area, to say the least.

anyway, I figured it would be easy to track down this CA 110 proof
and was looking forward to getting into some of the juicy details.
but as I wrote, there seemed to be a scarcity.

someone that subcribes to theory-edge tipped me off that
the proof had actually been restricted from publication
by a court order issued by wolfram!! with this info I was
able to track down some of the info from google newsgroup
archives, which I attach below.

basically, apparently wolfram SUED his own employee, matthew
cook, over the CA 110 proof. from what I can piece together
(some of this may not be exact) cook formulated and wrote up the proof
completely in a paper that was also available on his web site,
maybe around 1995, and apparently even presented it at a CA
conference. the paper was submitted for publication in
the book New Constructions in Cellular Automata coedited by
chris moore, who reviewed the proof & accepted it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195137175/

however apparently wolfram obtained a COURT ORDER against cook to stop
publication of the paper (or something like that),
at which point the CA book was delayed
and eventually released without cook's proof,
"one of the most interesting results presented at the conference" acc.
to SFI web site.

the paper was yanked from the web site also. apparently wolfram claims
it was a "trade secret". I actually tracked down the case number
on the LA civil complaint via the web (see below), maybe someone can get
more info on it, I assume it is part of the public record.

what's the ethics & propriety of all this???
---

now I havent read NKS yet, but my understanding is that while
crediting cook, it doesnt refer to the court order, and it
does NOT give the full proof. so as far as I know, one cannot
obtain the full info anywhere. maybe wolfram (inc.) wants to sell it to
the highest bidder someday? I can only speculate. one could easily
argue the commercial value of the proof is nil whereas its
scientific value is signficant, esp as a centerpiece for
wolframs claims for a Principle of Computational Equivalence in
nature.

I think wolfram needs to answer for all this & I am hoping
to see a scientific dialogue/debate on the subject, maybe here
but ideally, even in professional journals, debating the ethics
& implications of it all. it cuts to the core of the intellectual
property debate that is bouncing through cyberspace and courtrooms
in many dimensions (academic publishing being one area), and
also the "science versus business" or "science versus profit"
battlelines..

one could argue its a profoundly **antiscientific**
action on wolframs part, a skeleton in his closet. scandalous!!

the whole affair is quite strange. I wonder why it got
to the point of a court order, which also mentions Caltech.
did Cook initially refuse or resist? that seems to be implied
by the presence of an actual court filing, which is usually a last resort.
there is a big story in here somewhere.

some speculated that wolfram exerted the "blackout" because he
wanted to publish the proof in his own book, but that
apparently did not happen. so, steven wolfram, what is the
idea behind all this???

the CA 110 proof
---

the proof is said to be very ingenious. indeed, acc. to moore as quoted
below, it is based on the glider rules as I speculated earlier.
rule 110 glider rules are very complicated and I was hoping to read
a tour-de-force paper.

by the way, the other link I gave seems to have broken sublinks;
this seems to be a complete version of an examination of
glider rules, although alas the
.tex file source file is missing (I would rather read it as
a paper than a hyperlinked document, but oh well)

http://delta.cs.cinvestav.mx/~mcintosh/comun/RULE110W/RULE110.html

I sent email to cook at his caltech address, but he has
not responded. I dont know if he still works for Wolfram Inc.
I would like to hear more of the story on all this.

"a new kind of science"
---

I am strongly in accord with wolfram that a new kind of science
is being born as we speak. imho he has nailed some aspects of it:

- greater influence of empirical research on scientific
investigation via computer simulation
- possibly less emphasis on proof
- mathematics as subservient to, and reformulated as a subbranch of,
algorithmics
- the universe as a computation, low-level physics recast
in terms of CA rules, a good candidate for a TOE (theory of everything),
etcetera (ideas mainly already dating to fredkin)

however, reading reviews, it sounds to me that wolfram is weak
on one crucial point, which mathematicians can rightly lambaste
him on. this whole CA 110 affair seems to indicate a strange attitude
of his toward **mathematical proof**.

isnt it astonishing that the book contains almost no mathematical proofs,
and the one proof that it does, was not found by wolfram but by cook,
and in fact **suppressed** for publication by him via the heavy
handed tactics of wolframs obtaining a court order against his own
employee??

wolfram has a set of collected papers on CAs (advertising NKS on the
back!!), which struck me as all very creative. but they are very
empirical & statistical. I think wolfram is missing one essence of
theoretical computer science and mathematics and is weak in those areas.

imho, mainstream scientists can rightly thumb their noses at wolfram
for this gaping blind spot on his part relative to theoretical analysis
and mathematical proof. as long as his own brand of a
"new kind of science" thumbs its noses at the supremacy and
indispensibility of mathematical proof for meaningful analysis,
it limps forward on only one leg.

it is not surprising wolfram would have this attitude.
it is of course a age-old blind spot that physicists share
regarding mathematics. (wolframs earliest work was in particle physics.)

but one still has to ask.. is a hostile court order issued
against his own (virtuoso!! brilliant!!) employee, appropriating his
purely scientific work, wolframs idea of "a new kind of science"??

on one level I really dont care about all this-- I just want to see
that awesome proof!! but I resent wolfram for standing in the way of
me not just clicking on a PDF file and reading it this instant!!

W. Edwin Clark

unread,

Jul 3, 2002, 11:37:04 PM7/3/02

to

"V.Z.Nuri" wrote:
>
> rule 110 & legal action!!
> ---
>

Here is a description of the situation from the articles
"What kind of science is this?"
by Jim Giles, Nature 417, 216 - 218 (2002)

-----------------begin quote of Giles-------------------------
But within the world of complex systems it is difficult to separate
reactions to the man from those to his ideas. One incident in particular
has driven
a wedge between Wolfram and his former colleagues. The rule 110 proof
was actually developed by Matthew Cook, a young mathematician who
worked for Wolfram between 1991 and 1998. After leaving Wolfram's
employ, Cook presented his results at a conference at the Santa Fe Institute.
But details of the talk never made it into the conference proceedings.
Wolfram took legal action, arguing that Cook was in breach of agreements
that prevented him from publishing until Wolfram's book came out.

"We sympathized with Matthew," says one Santa Fe researcher. "Wolfram
took a privatized view of science." Cook, now a graduate student at
Caltech, says he cannot discuss the matter for legal reasons. Wolfram is
similarly reticent - when pressed he describes the incident as
"regrettable and best forgotten".

It is not the first time that Wolfram has annoyed complexity
researchers, who feel that he routinely fails to recognize the
contributions made by
others. "He tends to acknowledge people in two-point type," says one
researcher. Indeed, A New Kind of Science lacks conventional references to
prior work - although scientists and mathematicians including Cook are
acknowledged in the book's notes section.
-------------end quote of Giles----------------------------------

A N Neil

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 7:45:48 AM7/4/02

to

> what's the ethics & propriety of all this???

I had assumed it was a matter of copyright. A "work made for hire"
belongs to the employer. But this seems to say the claim was based on
"trade secret" considerations. I do not know how that works.

So, all you graduate students out there: Are you being paid as a
research assistant while you are doing your research? Will you be able
to publish it when you finish?

Rupert

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 10:31:48 PM7/4/02

to

A N Neil <ann...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message news:<040720020745489107%ann...@nym.alias.net>...

You can't copyright a mathematical fact, I do know that much. I
discussed the copyrighting of mathematical proofs with a law student
friend once, and she said you could copyright a certain *presentation*
of a mathematical proof. I don't know whether that's ever been done.
You can patent an algorithm.

I don't know how trade secrets work either, but you'd think Wolfram
would have to show the proof has commerical value, which seems like an
odd proposition.

Publically funded universities are supposed to consider themselves
accountable to certain ethical standards in making research available
to the public and giving due credit. But when the sponsor is a private
company it's a different kettle of fish.

George Maydwell

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 12:21:19 AM7/5/02

to

On 4 Jul 2002 19:31:48 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com (Rupert) wrote:

>A N Neil <ann...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message news:<040720020745489107%ann...@nym.alias.net>...
>> > what's the ethics & propriety of all this???
>>
>> I had assumed it was a matter of copyright. A "work made for hire"
>> belongs to the employer. But this seems to say the claim was based on
>> "trade secret" considerations. I do not know how that works.
>>
>> So, all you graduate students out there: Are you being paid as a
>> research assistant while you are doing your research? Will you be able
>> to publish it when you finish?
>
>You can't copyright a mathematical fact, I do know that much. I
>discussed the copyrighting of mathematical proofs with a law student
>friend once, and she said you could copyright a certain *presentation*
>of a mathematical proof. I don't know whether that's ever been done.
>You can patent an algorithm.
>
>I don't know how trade secrets work either, but you'd think Wolfram
>would have to show the proof has commerical value, which seems like an
>odd proposition.

In my software engineering experience trade secrets are usually dealt
with in a confidentiality agreement, which is likely considered a form
of contract. The commercial value of an invention would probably be
used only when determining financial damages to be awarded in the
event of a lawsuit.

>
>Publically funded universities are supposed to consider themselves
>accountable to certain ethical standards in making research available
>to the public and giving due credit. But when the sponsor is a private
>company it's a different kettle of fish.

Restricting a coworker's cellular automata publication seems awfully
ungracious to me, regardless of ethics. And suing someone over
cellular automata seems more than a bit ludicrous. Wolfram appears
ruthless if nothing else in his pursuit of cellular automata profit
and reputation.

But who else in the world is genius enough to make money from cellular
automata, let alone one-dimensional cellular automata?

George Maydwell
--
Modern Cellular Automata: www.collidoscope.com/modernca
Collidoscope Hexagonal Screensaver: www.collidoscope.com

Robert Israel

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 2:20:46 AM7/5/02

to

In article <d6af759.02070...@posting.google.com>,
Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You can't copyright a mathematical fact, I do know that much. I
>discussed the copyrighting of mathematical proofs with a law student
>friend once, and she said you could copyright a certain *presentation*
>of a mathematical proof. I don't know whether that's ever been done.

Of course it has. Look in any mathematics journal and you'll see papers
that consist mainly, sometimes almost entirely, of of one or more proofs.
What do you think the copyright is for, the acknowledgements and
references?

Robert Israel isr...@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2

Nico Benschop

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 3:12:19 AM7/5/02

to

Rupert wrote:

>
> A N Neil <ann...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> > > what's the ethics & propriety of all this???
> >
> > I had assumed it was a matter of copyright. A "work made for hire"
> > belongs to the employer. But this seems to say the claim was based
> > on "trade secret" considerations. I do not know how that works.
> >
> > So, all you graduate students out there: Are you being paid
> > as a research assistant while you are doing your research?
> > Will you be able to publish it when you finish?
>
> You can't copyright a mathematical fact, I do know that much.
> I discussed the copyrighting of mathematical proofs with a law
> student friend once, and she said you could copyright a certain
> *presentation* of a mathematical proof. I don't know whether
> that's ever been done. You can patent an algorithm.
> I don't know how trade secrets work either, but you'd think Wolfram
> would have to show the proof has commerical value, which seems like

> an odd proposition. [...]

(re cellular automata;-): As book sales go these days:
just about anything can become a self-fulfilling prophesy
(qua 'commercial value'). -- NB

Rupert

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 6:05:57 AM7/5/02

to

isr...@math.ubc.ca (Robert Israel) wrote in message news:<ag3dru$ekv$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>...

> In article <d6af759.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You can't copyright a mathematical fact, I do know that much. I
> >discussed the copyrighting of mathematical proofs with a law student
> >friend once, and she said you could copyright a certain *presentation*
> >of a mathematical proof. I don't know whether that's ever been done.
>
> Of course it has. Look in any mathematics journal and you'll see papers
> that consist mainly, sometimes almost entirely, of of one or more proofs.
> What do you think the copyright is for, the acknowledgements and
> references?
>

Yeah, well obviously texts are copyrighted all the time. I always
thought what she meant is that you can copyright something a bit less
specific than the word-for-word text, (your "way of presenting the
proof"), but not the method of proof (not that level of generality).
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe she just meant you can copyright a text. Or
maybe what I described (not very clearly) is part of the copyright on
a journal.

Hauke Reddmann

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 8:32:32 AM7/5/02

to

Oh, THAT'S what Monty Python meant when they said
"There is no rule 110" (base 2) :-)

--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8
Private email:fc3...@math.uni-hamburg.de
For our chemistry workgroup,remove "math" from the address
For spamming, remove anything else

Ralph Hartley

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 2:27:21 PM7/5/02

to

W. Edwin Clark wrote:
> "V.Z.Nuri" wrote:
>>rule 110 & legal action!!
>

> Here is a description of the situation from the articles
> "What kind of science is this?"
> by Jim Giles, Nature 417, 216 - 218 (2002)
>
> -----------------begin quote of Giles-------------------------

> [...] Wolfram is

> similarly reticent - when pressed he describes the incident as
> "regrettable and best forgotten".

> [...]

I would would think so! Most people generally consider thier own
miscoduct "best forgotten."

If accurately discribed in this thread, Wolfram's actions are certainly
miscoduct against science, though they are not within the usual
definition of "Scientific Misconduct."

Though his actions were (presumably) legal, and perhaps even ethical,
they place his integrity in serious doubt.

When Wolfram was a physics grad student, did no one ever explain to him
that *Integrity* (which goes far beyond mere ethics) is the hallmark of
true science? Does he not understand that what might be perfectly
legitimate buisiness practices are totally unacceptable in *any* kind of
science?

Ralph Hartley

Ken Muldrew

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 1:54:53 PM7/5/02

to

Ralph Hartley <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:

>When Wolfram was a physics grad student, did no one ever explain to him
>that *Integrity* (which goes far beyond mere ethics) is the hallmark of
>true science? Does he not understand that what might be perfectly
>legitimate buisiness practices are totally unacceptable in *any* kind of
>science?

Why do you think he's inventing a "new" kind of science? ;-)

Ken Muldrew
kmul...@ucalgary.ca

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 3:30:51 PM7/5/02

to

"Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:ag45jq$cqo$1...@ra.nrl.navy.mil...

My definition of integrity includes gathering enough facts to make an
informed
judgment. I think your distinction between ethics and integrity lacks merit.

Deepak Chopra has employed a team of ghostwriters to churn out "spiritual"
books for him. I think that is unethical and shows a lack of integrity. It
is legal
because Chopra pays the writer to produce the works. And Chopra owns the
copyright, not the writer who did the writing, who does not get any
_credit_.

In the USA, the people who produce copyrighted proofs for journals, etc
have the same rights as Wolfram, Inc. Wolfram does not create copyright
law by including an extended copyright notice. Enforcement is a choice.

Most univeristies have public funding so there is reason to provide the
results to the public. Private industries exist by protecting their
discoveries
with patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Some of these companies also
do SCIENCE such as IBM or AT&T.

These companies are best in a position to determine what can be freely
released to the public. They have the right because they paid for it. I
think
it shows a lack of integrity to claim the right of deciding what private
industry ought to do with what they have paid for. You did not pay for it.

If an individual wants to own a right for an idea or process developed
while under hire, he or she puts that into the contract...I also do not have
enough information to reach a fair conclusion---but I think it is highly
likely
that Cook did not put such a proviso into his contract or he would have
won the legal decision.

My definition of "integrity" is having your deeds match your words.
Ownership belongs to Wolfram Inc. and Wolfram Inc. exercised ownership.
How about the integrity involved in asking permission before you use someone
else's property? Before giving it away on your own website?

I certainly am against issuing trivial patents. Like for running a random
number
generator (legal) but taking that output and running it again through a
random
number generator has been patented. That is obvious and should not have the
right to be protected. Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique
effort
which Wolfram Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual
property.

Genuinely George,
Stephen

Rupert

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:20:38 AM7/6/02

to

"Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<LtmV8.6631$Iu6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> I certainly am against issuing trivial patents. Like for running a random
> number
> generator (legal) but taking that output and running it again through a
> random
> number generator has been patented. That is obvious and should not have the
> right to be protected. Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique
> effort
> which Wolfram Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual
> property.
>

But no commercial advantage to be gained from withholding it from the
scientific community. Still, Wolfram can exercise such rights as he
has provided for in a contract as he sees fit.

But some might infer from some of the things he's saying that he's
engaged in an effort to contribute to the sum of publicly available
scientific knowledge, without taking unfair or undue credit for any
result his company comes up with. If that's an impression he seeks to
create, that consistutes a lack of integrity by your definition, since
the impression is obviously not true.

> Genuinely George,
> Stephen

greysky

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 1:33:00 AM7/6/02

to

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6af759.02070...@posting.google.com...

> "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<LtmV8.6631$Iu6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > I certainly am against issuing trivial patents. Like for running a
random
> > number
> > generator (legal) but taking that output and running it again through a
> > random
> > number generator has been patented. That is obvious and should not have
the
> > right to be protected. Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique
> > effort
> > which Wolfram Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual
> > property.
> >
>
> But no commercial advantage to be gained from withholding it from the
> scientific community. Still, Wolfram can exercise such rights as he
> has provided for in a contract as he sees fit.

You know what's really funny about all this? Wolfram wants to charge me 80
bucks to upgrade my copy of mathematica from 4.1 to 4.2... the main selling
point seems to be, along with a few more functions, the ability for
scientists and researchers to better communicate their ideas freely along
the internet. I wonder if the program secretly reports all work to Wolfram,
who uses his supercomputer mind to sift through the gigabytes of data for
any information on CA nad then sends a cease and desist order to the
origonator - after all, since all you really bought was a CD, and not the
program on it which belongs to him, he should have a right to control the
output of the program for his own economic gain? Okay, I'm tired from
swilling beer and choking on hot dogs for the past couple days. Time for
bed.... ;-)

Gordon D. Pusch

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 2:38:59 AM7/7/02

to

rupertm...@yahoo.com (Rupert) writes:

> You can patent an algorithm.

Only if it's a ``non-mathematical'' algorithm. (The computer-illiterate
judges who issued the infamous "Benson Decision" of 1972, being utterly
ignorant of the Church-Turing Thesis, enshrined into law a totally baseless
legal distinction between ``non-mathematical algorithms'' which can be
patented, and ``mathematical'' algorithms, which cannot be patented
<http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5074>. Hence, Unisys can
hold a patent on LZW compression, and can continue to soak anyone who
generates a GIF for royalties, because in the US Federal Court's eyes,
somehow their employee's published proof of the asymptotic optimality
of comma-free arithmetic encoding is ``not mathematical.'')

-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

Ralph Hartley

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 3:21:54 PM7/8/02

to

Stephen Harris wrote:
> "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote :

>> Though his actions were (presumably) legal, and perhaps even
>> ethical, they place his integrity in serious doubt.
>>
>> When Wolfram was a physics grad student, did no one ever explain to
>> him that *Integrity* (which goes far beyond mere ethics) is the
>> hallmark of true science? Does he not understand that what might be
>> perfectly legitimate buisiness practices are totally unacceptable
>> in *any* kind of science?
>

> My definition of integrity includes gathering enough facts to make an
> informed judgment. I think your distinction between ethics and
> integrity lacks merit.

The distinction is this: ethics would prevent me from intentionally
fooling you, integerty would prevent me from (unintentionally) fooling
myself.

Integrity is knowing that you might be completely wrong, and *not* using
unfair arguments to convince yourself (or others) that you are right.

Sincerity is a defence against a charge of lacking ethics, but not
against a charge of lacking integrity.

> Most univeristies have public funding so there is reason to provide
> the results to the public. Private industries exist by protecting
> their discoveries with patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Some of
> these companies also do SCIENCE such as IBM or AT&T.
>
> These companies are best in a position to determine what can be
> freely released to the public. They have the right because they paid
> for it. I think it shows a lack of integrity to claim the right of
> deciding what private industry ought to do with what they have paid
> for. You did not pay for it.

Who claimed such a right? Private parties do have the right not to
release anything, that's law and ethics.

However, if they do not, they must be prepared to accept the
concequences, which are inevitable and not something I or anyone else
impose.

Here's the deal in science: if you publish your results in as complete a
form as possible, you get two things in return.

First, you get credit. When people remeber what you discovered they
remember you. One way this enforces integrity is that they will remeber
if you were wrong as well, a bit more integrity would have saved the
(obviously sincere) inventors of cold fusion a world of hurt.

The rule is "first to publish". The Vikings may have discovered America
first, but they kept it to themselves, so there is no "Ericson Ohio". It
may seem unfair, but there are good reasons for this rule.

Some people seem to want to have it both ways, to claim credit for
things without full publication. They have no right to expect this. They
have not upheld thier end of the bargain, but more importantly they have
not availed themselves of the second reward for publishing.

The second and more important thing you get in return for publishing is
that others will make sure that you got it right. If your result is
imortant enough that anyone cares, they will check them very carefully,
at no charge to you.

Face it, scientists are human, even the best can't expect to get things
right more than %90 of the time (and watch out for the ones that claim
they can). No one can (or should) *make* you take avantage of the
self correcting nature of science, but if you don't, you have no one
to blame but yourself.

> My definition of "integrity" is having your deeds match your words.
> Ownership belongs to Wolfram Inc. and Wolfram Inc. exercised
> ownership.

Ideas are not property. No one can own them.

(In the US) There are several kinds of "intellectual property", none of
which apply to ideas themselves.

> Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique effort which Wolfram
> Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual property.

Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with Cook
(presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that doesn't mean
he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and from what I have
heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and Wolfram would be a footnote.

Wolfram has the legal and ethical *right* not to listen to anyone who
explains to him that he is not Issac Newton. But he should anyway.

That would be integrity.

Ralph Hartley

Jeff Erickson

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 1:53:56 PM7/8/02

to

gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

| (The computer-illiterate judges who issued the infamous "Benson
| Decision" of 1972, being utterly ignorant of the Church-Turing
| Thesis, enshrined into law a totally baseless legal distinction
| between ``non-mathematical algorithms'' which can be patented, and
| ``mathematical'' algorithms, which cannot be patented

My reading of this discussion is different. The judges who issued the
decision may have added "mathematical" as emphasis, not restriction.
"Algorithms are mathematics, and therefore unpatentable." If that was
their intention, it was right on the mark.

Of course, the end result is the same. The mathematically illiterate
Patent Office consistently misinterprets this emphasis as a
restriction on which algorithms cannot be patented. More subtly, they
consistently restrict which mathematics should be considered
"mathematical".

Not that they're the only ones. To quote from the Linux Journal
article <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5074>:

> On the contrary, the programmer's stock in trade consists of
> algorithms, most of which are used for purposes other than solving
> equations.

Mathematics is not merely "solving equations".

> For example, when you study programming, you examine a whole series
> of algorithms that perform tasks such as sorting and searching.

Sorting and searching are mathematical problems.

> To restrict the abstract conceptual knowledge of programmers and
> software engineers to mathematical algorithms is not only
> theoretically indefensible, but flies in the face of everyday
> professional practice.

To restrict the abstract conceptual knowledge of programmers and
software engineers to mathematical algorithms is both inevitable and
trivial. There is no restriction. ALL algorithms are mathematical.
You might as well make it illegal to breath non-gaseous air, or drink
hydrogen-free water.

--
Jeff Erickson je...@cs.uiuc.edu
Computer Science Department http://www.uiuc.edu/~jeffe
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 4:15:07 PM7/8/02

to

"Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message

news:agc5tm$faa$1...@ra.nrl.navy.mil...

> Stephen Harris wrote:
> > "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote :

> > Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique effort which Wolfram
> > Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual property.
>
> Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with Cook
> (presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that doesn't mean
> he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and from what I have
> heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and Wolfram would be a
footnote.
>
>

> Ralph Hartley
>

All of your thinking is peculiar. I quote the last part because it is
factually wrong.
It would never be *your* proof. That proof is typewritten material and it is
owned
by copyright. If you discovered the same proof, it would only be *yours* in
your
imagination and it would be plagiarizing to use the proof developed by Cook
and
Wolfram which you could be sued for. *Only* if you develop and alternate
proof, substantially different from Cook, would it be *your* proof. Do you
think
that if you conceived of Goldbach's Conjecture(which is pretty simple) that
you
could present it as your independent idea (Hartley's Hypothesis)??

"The rule is "first to publish"."

That applies to independent discoveries of the same material. Not to an
employee
working for an employer. Intel keeps developing faster chips. That knowledge
is
produced by employees. The employees do not own that knowledge. They cannot
quit Intel and produce the chip first with rights to it.

The main thing I find objectionable in your posting is your confusion
of your political views with the concept of integrity.

You wrote:

"The distinction is this: ethics would prevent me from intentionally
fooling you, integerty would prevent me from (unintentionally) fooling
myself."

"Sincerity is a defence against a charge of lacking ethics, but not

against a charge of lacking integrity."

SH:
Integrity cannot prevent you from (unintentionally) fooling yourself.
Nobody exists who has complete knowledge/understanding of their motives.
The very best they can do is make a sincere effort to understand themselves.

You wrote:
"First, you get credit. When people remeber what you discovered they
remember you. One way this enforces integrity is that they will remeber
if you were wrong as well, a bit more integrity would have saved the
(obviously sincere) inventors of cold fusion a world of hurt."

SH:
Your claim here is that if the discovers of cold fusion had more integrity
then they would not have developed cold fusion and would be remembered
by others as having made a good choice---and this would enforce integrity.
Because they would not be remembered wrongly, they would not be
remembered at all, for discovering nothing.

This is what I mean about your political views being confused with
integrity.
You assume the discovery and development of cold fusion was wrong.
The inventors could have saved themselves a world of hurt...

I think it showed integrity for the discoverers of cold fusion to pursue
their course of action knowing they would be wrongfully judged by the
ignorant. The application of atomic enegry is not restricted to just bombs.

Goodbye,
Stephen

cyberdiction

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 5:29:17 PM7/8/02

to

> Stephen Harris wrote:
> > "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote :

> > My definition of "integrity" is having your deeds match your words.
> > Ownership belongs to Wolfram Inc. and Wolfram Inc. exercised
> > ownership.
>
> Ideas are not property. No one can own them.
>

A patent is idea for a way of doing something. A book which is copyrighted,
is a bunch of ideas arranged meaningfully and uniquely. This is an example
of one of your peculiar statements. Are you a North American Indian who
believes the land belongs to the Great Spirit and you just live there or
do you have keys and lock up your house/car?

> (In the US) There are several kinds of "intellectual property", none of
> which apply to ideas themselves.
>

We are talking about copyrights where the key words are novel and original
both of which describe the basis for an idea or comparison to an idea.

> > Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique effort which Wolfram
> > Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual property.
>
> Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with Cook
> (presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that doesn't mean
> he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and from what I have
> heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and Wolfram would be a footnote.
>

> Ralph Hartley

I think you are almost certainly mistaken. Adobe hires a bunch of technical
writers to do their manuals. All of those manuals are copyrighted and the
copyright belongs to Adobe, not the authors who actually wrote the manuals.

That proof is at least partially in written form and it is copyrighted.
That copyright belongs to Wolfram, Inc. not Cook, because they paid him
to develop it. It doesn't matter that Cook did the original thinking just
like it does not matter that writers at Adobe did the original thinking.

The copyright belongs to the company. And *NO* it would not be "your"
proof unless it contained a tangible amount of original thinking(ideas)
on your part. If you replicated Wolfram's copyrighted proof all you would
own is some pride in your accomplishment; no right whatsoever to use publish
the proof as your own. The right would belong to Wolfram Inc. to sue you.

Why did you write this completely imaginary rendering of reality??
It shows a lack of integrity to pontificate about a topic of which
you are not only ignorant but are closer to holding views opposite
of the facts. Are you going to claim you didn't know you were talking
through the top of your hat? About the only right thing you said was
about first to publish and you got the context wrong with that.

Robert Daniels

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 8:11:10 PM7/8/02

to

> > RalphHartley wrote: Ideas are not property. No one can own them.
>
>Cyberdiction:

>
> A patent is idea for a way of doing something. A book which is
copyrighted,
> is a bunch of ideas arranged meaningfully and uniquely. This is an example
> of one of your peculiar statements. Are you a North American Indian who
> believes the land belongs to the Great Spirit and you just live there or
> do you have keys and lock up your house/car?

No, Ralph is right. A US patent generally requires that a new, nonobvious,
useful process or composition of matter be *reduced to practice.*
"Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the
field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that
the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable
subject matter." http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm

> > (In the US) There are several kinds of "intellectual property", none of
> > which apply to ideas themselves.
>
> We are talking about copyrights where the key words are novel and original
> both of which describe the basis for an idea or comparison to an idea.
>

Copyright protects the particular *expression* of an idea, not the idea
itself, and is further limited by the public's right of "fair use."
Categories not eligible for copyright include "Ideas, procedures, methods,
systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as
distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

> > Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with Cook
> > (presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that doesn't mean
> > he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and from what I have
> > heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and Wolfram would be a
footnote.

....>

> That proof is at least partially in written form and it is copyrighted.
> That copyright belongs to Wolfram, Inc. not Cook, because they paid him
> to develop it. It doesn't matter that Cook did the original thinking just
> like it does not matter that writers at Adobe did the original thinking.
>
> The copyright belongs to the company. And *NO* it would not be "your"
> proof unless it contained a tangible amount of original thinking(ideas)
> on your part. If you replicated Wolfram's copyrighted proof all you would
> own is some pride in your accomplishment; no right whatsoever to use
publish
> the proof as your own. The right would belong to Wolfram Inc. to sue you.

No, this confuses patents and copyrights. If you do not copy there is no
copyright infringement. (eg the reverse-engineering of the (c) IBM ROM-BIOS
in PC's)

Wolfram, or his "intellectual property" suits, are making sweeping claims
which confuse patent and (c) protection. They do so knowing that the claims
aren't true, but there is no cost to making them and they may scare off some
people. Poor Wolfram -- how horrible to be the smartest guy in the world at
age 21. What do you do for an encore?

Bob Daniels

PS. By the time he was Wolfram's age, Mozart was dead.

Russell Easterly

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 8:41:04 PM7/8/02

to

"Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:fpmW8.86238$UT.58...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
> news:agc5tm$faa$1...@ra.nrl.navy.mil...
> > Stephen Harris wrote:
> > > "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote :
> > > Cook's proof seems to have been a rather unique effort which Wolfram
> > > Inc. paid for. A true and honest example of intellectual property.
> >
> > Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with Cook
> > (presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that doesn't mean
> > he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and from what I have
> > heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and Wolfram would be a
> footnote.

Publishing and copywriting something makes it property.
If Cook did not publish the proof and Wolfram did not publish it
then you could publish and copyright it.
That is one of the problems with "trade secrets".
Once it is not a secret, anyone can use it.
You would have trouble trying to patent it.
So would Wolfram.

Russell
- 2 many 2 count

Russell Easterly

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 8:54:35 PM7/8/02

to

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6af759.02070...@posting.google.com...

> A N Neil <ann...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:<040720020745489107%ann...@nym.alias.net>...
> > > what's the ethics & propriety of all this???
> >
> > I had assumed it was a matter of copyright. A "work made for hire"
> > belongs to the employer. But this seems to say the claim was based on
> > "trade secret" considerations. I do not know how that works.

A trade secret is anything your competitor doesn't know.
A famous example is the formula for Coca-Cola.
That is why companies have employees sign contracts
stating that they won't reveal trade secrets.
If the employee reveals the secret the company has
little recourse other than suing the employee.

Since these contracts obviously don't specify which secrets
the employee can't reveal, I usually refuse to sign such contracts.
People should learn to read what they are signing.
Companies wouldn't ask people to sign such foolish contracts
if more people complained about them.

Russell
- the universe is one dimensional (Trade Secret)

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 11:21:14 PM7/8/02

to

"Robert Daniels" <rhd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ySpW8.1838$6O1.22...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The problem with your argument is that this proof was on a UC machine
and the Santa Fe Institute had made plans to include/publish this proof.

I dont believe they (Moore and Cook) backed off by choice. They
were not frightened, they lost the legal decision. There had to be a
legal basis for Wolfram, Inc. to launch their lawsuit.

Copyright has to do with a unique expression or "particular" expression.
I've already said twice in other threads that an alternative expression
would be OK. That ***does not mean*** you can take the same
expression and just change a few words around. You cannot do that
and avoid infringement. Any proof that takes 2-3 years to develop is
highly individualistic---you cannot duplicate the same process that
the proof uses with a slightly altered commentary and have a
"different" proof. That activity is called plagiarism.

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 3:34:25 AM7/9/02

to

"Robert Daniels" <rhd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ySpW8.1838$6O1.22...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

> > > RalphHartley wrote: Ideas are not property. No one can own them.
> >
> >Cyberdiction:
> >
> > A patent is idea for a way of doing something. A book which is
> copyrighted,
> > is a bunch of ideas arranged meaningfully and uniquely. This is an
example
> > of one of your peculiar statements. Are you a North American Indian who
> > believes the land belongs to the Great Spirit and you just live there or
> > do you have keys and lock up your house/car?
>
> No, Ralph is right. A US patent generally requires that a new, nonobvious,
> useful process or composition of matter be *reduced to practice.*
> "Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of
the
> field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that
> the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not
patentable
> subject matter." http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
>

I think a proof is an explanation often accompanied by illustrations.
Both can be copyrighted.

Cant be copyrighted:

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles,
discoveries, or devices,

Can be copyrighted:

as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Patents need to highly original but copyright less so.

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a
tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible
so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device.
Copyrightable works include the following categories:

literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs
and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and
architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural
works."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed
form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the
property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those
deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is
considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a
"work made for hire" as:

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
a contribution to a collective work
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
a translation
a supplementary work
a compilation
an instructional text
a test
answer material for a test
a sound recording
an atlas
if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that
the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

That proof of rule 110 was copyrighted and belongs to Wolfram, Inc.
if Cook signed an agreement during his employment when he developed the
proof.

W. Edwin Clark

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 6:14:02 AM7/9/02

to

[Discussion deleted]

It seems that all this talk about copyright and patents
is beside the point.

Recall that the Nature article by Giles says,

"After leaving Wolfram's employ, Cook presented his results
at a conference at the Santa Fe Institute. But details of
the talk never made it into the conference proceedings.
Wolfram took legal action, arguing that Cook was in breach
of agreements that prevented him from publishing until
Wolfram's book came out."

So he had apparently only agreed to not publish until the
book was published. Perhaps Cook will now be publishing the
proof.

Edwin Clark

Ralph Hartley

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 3:36:32 PM7/9/02

to

Stephen Harris wrote:
> "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message

>> Stephen Harris wrote:
>>> "Ralph Hartley" <har...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote : Cook's proof
>>> seems to have been a rather unique effort which Wolfram Inc. paid
>>> for. A true and honest example of intellectual property.
>>
>> Cook's *alleged* proof is not property. Wolfram's contract with
>> Cook (presumably) gave him the right to keep it secret, but that
>> doesn't mean he owns the proof. If I discoverd it from scratch (and
>> from what I have heard so far) it would be *my* proof. Cook and
>> Wolfram would be a footnote.
>

> All of your thinking is peculiar. I quote the last part because it is
> factually wrong. It would never be *your* proof. That proof is
> typewritten material and it is owned by copyright.

The *manuscript* of the proof is a document protected by copyright.
Copywrite only prevents me from *copying* that document. How could I
*copy* a document that I have never seen? (Copyrite also restricts
creation of "derived works", but the same argument applies.)

Also, copyrite protects the expresion of an idea (the document), not the
idea itself (the proof, assuming it exists). Even if the proof *had*
been published, I could still legaly publish it (in my own words) in a
text book, though I would have to give Cook credit.

> If you discovered the same proof, it would only be *yours* in your
> imagination and it would be plagiarizing to use the proof developed
> by Cook and Wolfram which you could be sued for.

This is incorrect, because I have not seen Cooks "proof". Independant
production is an absolute defense against a charge of copyrite violation
(that's the law).

Of course to be ethical I would have to explain in a footnote that
Wolfram *claimed* (without evidence) that such a proof existed, so I could
not be accused of trying to claim credit that someone else deserves
(which is the definition of plagiarism, but note that Wolfram dosn't
actually deserve any credit).

Only patents restrict the use of independant reinventions, but proofs
(still) can't be pattented, and patents require disclosure.

Nor could I be (successfully) sued for releasing a trade secret, because I
am not privy to the secret, and I (unlike Cook, presumably) have not
signed a non-disclosure agreement.

> Do you think that if you conceived of Goldbach's Conjecture(which is
> pretty simple) that you could present it as your independent idea
> (Hartley's Hypothesis)??

But Goldbach's Conjecture has been published already. To make that claim
I would have to truthfully claim that I had never seen it. Then I could
be (rightfully) accused of inexcusable ignorance of the liturature.

If I had concieved it before it was published (I don't think I was born
then), then of course I could have.

Issues of knowlege and intent are hard to prove, that's one
reason why:

>> "The rule is "first to publish"."
>
> That applies to independent discoveries of the same material. Not to
> an employee working for an employer.

No. It applies to credit for an idea, not ownership of a product. The
latter is a legal concept. The former is not, no court (other than the
"court" of history) can decide it.

>> "The distinction is this: ethics would prevent me from
>> intentionally fooling you, integerty would prevent me from
>> (unintentionally) fooling myself."

> SH: Integrity cannot prevent you from (unintentionally) fooling

> yourself. Nobody exists who has complete knowledge/understanding of
> their motives. The very best they can do is make a sincere effort to
> understand themselves.

Well, that's part of what integrity is. It also includes (but isn't
limited to) knowing that you might be completely wrong, being willing to
expose your ideas to the harshest possible criticism, pointing out in
detail the possible flaws in your own work, and being equally willing to
publish results that aren't the ones you wanted to get.

Of course none of these things are %100 effective in preventing
self delusion, but they all help.

Hubris (bringing the subject back to Wolfram) doesn't.

> RH:

>> "First, you get credit. When people remeber what you discovered
>> they remember you. One way this enforces integrity is that they
>> will remeber if you were wrong as well, a bit more integrity would
>> have saved the (obviously sincere) inventors of cold fusion a world
>> of hurt."
>
> SH: Your claim here is that if the discovers of cold fusion had more
> integrity then they would not have developed cold fusion and would be
> remembered by others as having made a good choice---and this would
> enforce integrity. Because they would not be remembered wrongly, they
> would not be remembered at all, for discovering nothing.

My point is that they will be remembered for making a big fuss, and for
being wrong, instead of for the much more modest (but respectable) work
they had done before.

I remenber that one of them said that before they did the experiment,
they considered it a "million to one shot". If they had remebered that
even the best scientists botch at least %10 of thier experiments, they
would have realized that thier result only made it a 100,000 to 1 shot.
Even if they did experiments right %99 of the time, (which no one really
does) the odds would have been only 10,000 to 1.

If they had considered this, they might have looked much more carefully
and critically at thier results, looked for more evidence (and looked
harder for evidence that they wore wrong), and published quietly,
instead of betting thier careers and calling a press conference.

> This is what I mean about your political views being confused with
> integrity. You assume the discovery and development of cold fusion
> was wrong.

For the sake of this discussion assume that it was wrong.

This is not a political view at all. It is my considered conclusion,
from the evidence available. Of course, if it turns out that my
conclusion was wrong, then the inventers of cold fusion might be
remembered as visionaries, but that isn't how I would bet, and
I would give very good odds.

As for what I said about ideas not being property, that's just the law.
To say that they should, or shouldn't, be property would be politics.

Ralph Hartley

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 5:23:27 PM7/9/02

to

Stephen Harris wrote:
> "Robert Daniels" <rhd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

>>Wolfram, or his "intellectual property" suits, are making sweeping claims
>>which confuse patent and (c) protection. They do so knowing that the
>>claims aren't true, but there is no cost to making them and they may scare off
>>some people.

To be fair, the only suit I know of was against his own employee. I am
assuming, for the sake of argument, that the suit had merit, and that
Wolfram had the legal right to prevent Cook's publication.

Be that as it may, I contend that both the scientific comunity, and in
the long run Wolfram himself, would have been better served if, instead
of forbidding publication, he had insisted upon it.

As I see it, Wolfram's position falls somewhere in the spectrum between
"selfish" and "shortsighted". Niether sefishness nor shortsightedness
are illigal, or even unethical.

Wolfram has the right to make bad decisions, I can not and would not
make them for him.

*But*, Wolfram claims to have invented (or does he just claim to have
paid for the invetion of) a "new kind of science". In deciding whether
or not to take this extreem claim seriously, I have to take his
integrity into consideration. If, as *appears* to be the case, he is
trying to keep me from having information I need to make an informed
judgement, that would weigh strongly against his claim.

> I dont believe they (Moore and Cook) backed off by choice. They
> were not frightened, they lost the legal decision. There had to be a
> legal basis for Wolfram, Inc. to launch their lawsuit.

As I said, I am assuming that this is the case.

> That ***does not mean*** you can take the same
> expression and just change a few words around. You cannot do that
> and avoid infringement.

Also, I could not do that without having seen their version.

> Any proof that takes 2-3 years to develop is
> highly individualistic---you cannot duplicate the same process that
> the proof uses with a slightly altered commentary and have a
> "different" proof. That activity is called plagiarism.

Copyright violation, is only possible (by definition) if I have seen (or
had some other access that permitted copying) the document. If I
independently produced a document that was word for word identical to
theirs, that would be so unlikely as to be unbelievable, but it wouldn't
be copyright violation.

Also, the "process that the proof uses" is not covered by copyright.
"Processes" are one of the things that are explicitly excluded. I don't
need to produce a new proof to avoid copyright violation - just a new
expression. To the extent that a particular aspect of expression is
required or prefered to express the idea of the proof, that aspect of
expression is not protected either (this is well established law as well).

Plagiarism is very differnt from copyright violation. It *does* apply to
ideas. Plagiarism isn't copying someone else's ideas, it is making
(through action or inaction) false claims about their origin (in you own
favor).

To avoid plagiarism I would have to say where I got anything I didn't
invent myself, that would include any "hints" I got from any source.

Ralph Hartley

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 3:18:54 PM7/9/02

to

Ralph Hartley wrote:

> The *manuscript* of the proof is a document protected by copyright.
> Copywrite only prevents me from *copying* that document. How could I
> *copy* a document that I have never seen? (Copyrite also restricts
> creation of "derived works", but the same argument applies.)

About the worst thing you can do in a presentation about copyright is
repeatedly misspell it.

--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ See the son in your bad day / Smell the flowers in the valley
\__/ Chante Moore
Bosskey.net: Aliens vs. Predator 2 / http://www.bosskey.net/avp2/
A personal guide to Aliens vs. Predator 2.

Robert Daniels

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 3:55:08 PM7/9/02

to

"W. Edwin Clark" <ecl...@math.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:3D2AB768...@math.usf.edu...

Ironic, isn't it, that two years ago a Federal District Court found that
Wolfram Research Inc. had most likely infringed the copyright in the
Encyclopedia of Mathematics and granted a preliminary injunction against
WRI. CRC Press v. Wolfram Research, 149 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 15851; 57 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1220 (C.D. Ill. 2000)

Bob Daniels

George Maydwell

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 1:18:59 PM7/9/02

to

Only the version of the proof originally produced for Wolfram is
copyrightable by Wolfram, since "Copyright protects "original works of
authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression." (your
quote).

Proof of rule 110 cannot be copyrighted (under US law) as copyright
doesn't cover ideas (your quote: "Cant be copyrighted: Ideas..."),
only specific works of authorship. Only instances of the proof (i.e.:
fixed in a tangible form of expression) can be copyrighted.

If Cook tried to publish a copy or derivative of the work of
authorship produces for Wolfram than this indeed constitutes a
copyright violation. However, if he rewrote the proof then the rewrite
constitutes an "original work of authorship" by Cook, not Wolfram.

Far more than copyright law seems to be involved here. Its really a
shame that we are all reduced to speculation on this matter. Are there
no court transcripts publicly available for the court case? One must
presume that Cook is now bound by a gag order or gag agreement of some
sort and that this is why his side of the story has not emerged.

V.Z.Nuri

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 4:23:16 PM7/9/02

to

hi all. a few followup points.

from what I understand cook signed a NDA, nondisclosure agreement
prior to working on the CA proof.
the more draconian of these actually have clauses along the
lines "anything you create, even outside
of the job, related to the companies interests, is property of
the company". knowing wolfram, it wouldnt surprise me if cook's
contract said something like that. its a whole other question
of how courts or a jury would consider such clauses and
how/whether they would enforce them. (I would be curious)

the whole NDA thing is (as another poster wrote) a rather
gray area. theoretically the company must be very precise in
what is considered confidential or not confidential, but in
practice it doesnt really happen. in practice it sometimes just
amounts to a leash over the employee that the company can yank
whenever it wants.

now the rumors from the press etc. are that wolfram sued so that
the details would not be released until his book was published.
but the book, now released, does not publish the full proof
(as I understand it), and it still hasnt
been released afaik. so this could be a "cover story" circulated
to avoid bad publicity.

also from the info posted (jim giles article in nature),
cook says he cannot discuss the proof
for "legal reasons". perhaps as part of an out-of-court
settlement, he is not allowed to talk about it or the issue or settlement
further.

now what perplexes me is that the proof was apparently on
a web page and presented at the CA conference. (I dont know the
timing of this, whether it happened while cook was an employee
or not). the scenario that it sounded like to me was that
wolfram sued only after it had already been released
to the public & become "public knowledge".

what I wonder. what were the chain of events that caused
wolfram to sue? apparently cook went a long time working
on the proof & presenting it without hassle from wolfram.
was cook working on it a long time without wolframs knowledge?
or was wolfram aware of cook's directions from the beginning?
did wolfram notice or take an interest only after cook started to
gain some fame with the proof?

Im sure theres a big story here, unfortunately (but understandably)
nobody's talking...

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 4:23:12 PM7/9/02

to

Robert Daniels wrote:

> Ironic, isn't it, that two years ago a Federal District Court found
> that
> Wolfram Research Inc. had most likely infringed the copyright in the
> Encyclopedia of Mathematics and granted a preliminary injunction
> against
> WRI. CRC Press v. Wolfram Research, 149 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2000 U.S.
> Dist.
> LEXIS 15851; 57 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1220 (C.D. Ill. 2000)

Tsk, tsk. There is a lot more to this particular story than that:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/erics_commentary.html

The incident has nothing whatsoever to do with Wolfram's alleged greed,
but instead is merely a cautionary tale about signing contracts without
having a lawyer pore over every word.

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 4:25:53 PM7/9/02

to

George Maydwell wrote:

> If Cook tried to publish a copy or derivative of the work of
> authorship produces for Wolfram than this indeed constitutes a
> copyright violation. However, if he rewrote the proof then the rewrite
> constitutes an "original work of authorship" by Cook, not Wolfram.

True, but this would be a hard sell, since he developed and wrote the
original proof. It's theoretically true that he could rewrite the proof
from scratch without referencing the original paper (which was a
work-for-hire and thus Wolfram owns the copyright), but there's a big
gap between theory and what the courts would actually say about it.

It is true that the proof itself cannot be copyrighted, only one's own
expression of that proof put into tangible form can be.

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 8:38:02 PM7/9/02

to

"George Maydwell" <geo...@collidoscope.com> wrote in message
news:3d3d14f5...@news.prodigy.net...

> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:34:25 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >That proof of rule 110 was copyrighted and belongs to Wolfram, Inc.
> >if Cook signed an agreement during his employment when he developed the
> >proof.
> >
> Only the version of the proof originally produced for Wolfram is
> copyrightable by Wolfram, since "Copyright protects "original works of
> authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression." (your
> quote).
>

> Proof of rule 110 cannot be copyrighted (under US law) as copyright
> doesn't cover ideas (your quote: "Cant be copyrighted: Ideas..."),
> only specific works of authorship. Only instances of the proof (i.e.:
> fixed in a tangible form of expression) can be copyrighted.
>

I am not sure what you mean by "instances of the proof". There is only
one proof under discussion though there may be alternative proofs.

Perhaps you meant explanations of the proof. Descriptions and/or
explanations are copyrightable as well as illustrations. I think that is a
good definition of a proof: an explanation of why something is so,
often accompanied by illustrations or diagrams. Cook cannot use
illustrations previously stored on media while he was working at
Woflram Inc. without permission--presuming he signed an agreement
that are part of the proof.

Patents require nearly total originality (called novelty). Copyrights
require some originality. An explanation requires creating a viewpoint
through thinking and using ideas. Not an idea in the sense of random
generating the output of a random generator twice which was given a
patent. This example was in Currents a Bay Area computer publication
which had a column about computer politics.

*I suppose Cook could create a different explanation and produce
the graphics by independent means and avoid infringement. And
since I originally thought he would need an alternative proof, I was
wrong.* I think a judge has a lot of leeway in interpreting the law
and the legal system has been leaning toward protecting intellectual
property. Wolfram is arrogant, but I dont see that as justifying attacks
based on envy and innuendo. There appear to be quite a few of these.
Very few people could write the factual part of NKS because the
scope of the book contains other disciplines.

I mean one of the things I wondered about is how his ideas of randomness
related to the compressibility randomness definition of Algorithic
Information
Theory(AIT). Wolfram knew about AIT and even had this indexed.

> If Cook tried to publish a copy or derivative of the work of
> authorship produces for Wolfram than this indeed constitutes a
> copyright violation. However, if he rewrote the proof then the rewrite
> constitutes an "original work of authorship" by Cook, not Wolfram.
>
> Far more than copyright law seems to be involved here. Its really a
> shame that we are all reduced to speculation on this matter. Are there
> no court transcripts publicly available for the court case? One must
> presume that Cook is now bound by a gag order or gag agreement of some
> sort and that this is why his side of the story has not emerged.
>
> George Maydwell
> --

I think a bias is operating here. What statement has Wolfram, Inc.
produced that justified their side and villified Cook? People are quite
ready to condemn or find "ironic" that Wolfram was sued for copyright
infringement and we discover that it is Wolfram who extended harbor
to Eric Weinstein (Treasure Trove of Mathematics) the victim of the
lawsuit, so that innuendo failed. But there is more to take its place.
I think the confidentiality restraint operates on both sides.

Nonetheless, cordially yours,
Stephen

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 8:44:20 PM7/9/02

to

Stephen Harris wrote:

> I am not sure what you mean by "instances of the proof". There is
> only
> one proof under discussion though there may be alternative proofs.

He's making a distinction between the abstract idea behind the proof --
which is not copyrightable -- and the actual fixed form of an individual
turning that abstract idea into a concrete form -- which is
copyrightable.

I have a proof of Kepler's laws up on my pages, for instance. Certainly
that proof is copyrighted, because it is my own work and involves my own
writing. The fact that that proof is copyrighted does not in any way
suggest that there is some automatic copyright granted to me for proofs
of Kepler's laws in general (discounting of course that mine is by no
means the first), even if they use fundamentally the same approach. The
copyright protects my expression of the proof, not the proof itself.

Stephen Harris

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 10:51:03 PM7/9/02

to

"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:3D2B8364...@alcyone.com...

> Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what you mean by "instances of the proof". There is
> > only
> > one proof under discussion though there may be alternative proofs.
>
> He's making a distinction between the abstract idea behind the proof --
> which is not copyrightable -- and the actual fixed form of an individual
> turning that abstract idea into a concrete form -- which is
> copyrightable.
>

This distinction bothered me and I have done some thinking about why
which I am now gonna inflict upon whoever reads this.

Hofstadter wrote this book about translation and an old French poem.
This got me interested in translation and I read about it. For instance
the Illiad has had several translators and some of them are poor.

So I dont think there is an underlying Greek abstract meaning and
each translator creates an instance. Some of the translators provided
a literal translation and others understood what the original author
meant and was talking about and relate this to their own experience
and really capture the spirit of the original.

Now the best are the most congruent and maybe they are instances.
But the others are alternatives. They really dont mean the same thing
as the original text.

Now I dont know how well this maps to a mathematical proof,
when things are instances and when things are alternatives. I considered
other quite different proofs than Cook's. These proofs could have
similar explanations as the original or the explanation/commentary
might be quite different, giving a different interpretation about why
a mathematical fact is true---like quantum mechanics and various
interpretations.

So my end conclusion is that copyright law is not really specific.
You cannot copyright an underlying idea. But there is an underlying
idea to an explanation and the way such a proof is formatted/presented
and I think the explanation which is copyrightable begins to share
some of the properties as the underlying idea(conceptual proof)
which cannot be copyrighted.

What I'm thinking about is easier to see in translations of something
like the Illiad where a paragraph translated by one guy doesn't mean
the same thing as another guy's translation. And we are able to
distinguish gifted translations.

Regards,
Stephen

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 11:33:59 PM7/9/02

to

Stephen Harris wrote:

> Now I dont know how well this maps to a mathematical proof,
> when things are instances and when things are alternatives. I
> considered
> other quite different proofs than Cook's.

I don't think it maps very well at all. A translation is explicitly a
derived work. Obviously the _Iliad_ is far too old to be under
copyright, but if it weren't, a translation would be a derived work and
under the same copyright restrictions as the original work.

But that's not the same thing at all as what we're talking about here;
we're talking about the fixing of an original work based on an abstract
idea. The idea itself cannot be copyrighted, but each fixed work can be
(and separately).

David Eppstein

unread,

Jul 10, 2002, 12:02:33 AM7/10/02

to

In article <KlLW8.16998$Iu6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> *I suppose Cook could create a different explanation and produce
> the graphics by independent means and avoid infringement. And
> since I originally thought he would need an alternative proof, I was
> wrong.*

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it the case involved contract law
(a non-disclosure agreement) rather than intellectual property
(copyright infringement as you seem to be discussing).

--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Jul 10, 2002, 12:42:06 AM7/10/02

to

David Eppstein wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it the case involved contract
> law
> (a non-disclosure agreement) rather than intellectual property
> (copyright infringement as you seem to be discussing).

Yeah, I would imagine. Wolfram paid him to find a proof, not write a
paper. I suspect his contract gave Wolfram the first rights of
publication, and Wolfram planned to first use it in _A New Kind of
Science_, and that's what the whole thing is about.

ken...@shangrila.net

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 11:30:29 AM7/12/02

to

"V.Z.Nuri" wrote:

I have bought Wolfram's book, all five pounds four ounces of it, and so far
I've gotten through the first chapter. One thing comes through loud and
clear already: this guy is not the most modest of men or even the second most
modest. It does seem clear that the book is corporate rather than personal
output, much like Edison's. This is not the picture Wolfram presents.

ChitterChatter

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 11:08:47 AM7/14/02

to

I find this interesting. I just started reading "A New Kind of
Science." I did a brief overview of the text making it half way
through but feel as though much is missing. Then I read at least one
fo the formulas is not complete.

Does anyone know ifheremoved material out of the book because he had
to, for lets say government security reasons. Implications for atomic
theory seem to be quite grand and I know this without having a PhD.

I am actually interested in his text because I like Literary Theory
and I was wondering what "blanks, gaps" and the rest would be
portrayed as in his text.

Seems he suggests a closed system where math is taken away to cause
representations instead of added. Is he able to create something
non-existant?
The snowflakes look like the basic mold and maybe some artist does the
finishing touches--a graphics computer program from a higher power,
but still it looks like elimination instead of creation since there
are not that many complexities. This would have an impact on the
existenceof infinity in a closed systemm and how to exit a closed
system.

Whatever. I never get headaches, but this book really gave me one
with the different levels and the underlying gossip columns of the
scientific community. Though, I cannot wait to finish the brief
overview and reread it thoroughly. Maybe I will even understand it?!

I always thought it was generally accepted that everything in
existence was some sort of mathematical formula, but he seems to
easily prove the formulas are quite simple even though they look
complex and this is a frightening theory I would say. I think he
proves it.

ken...@shangrila.net wrote in message news:<3D2EF6E9...@bellatlantic.net>...

Tim Tyler

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 1:51:56 PM7/14/02

to

In comp.theory.cell-automata ChitterChatter <Hedy.Ch...@att.net> wrote:

: I always thought it was generally accepted that everything in

: existence was some sort of mathematical formula, but he seems to
: easily prove the formulas are quite simple even though they look
: complex and this is a frightening theory I would say. I think he
: proves it.

Nobody knows whether the rules of the universe are simple or complex -
not even Stephen Wolfram.

Remarkably simple rules do seem to be at least a possibility, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1.org