Darpa Plagarism Thread

Copying this around to a few places I frequent

To whom it may concern,

It has recently been brought to my attention that patent application number 20070162405, Characterizing and predicting agents via multi-agent evolution describes exactly work I released in the public domain in 1997.

The game in question can be downloaded from:
Cam-direct.co.uk

Although the later versions use much more sophisticated algorithms than those description in this patent, the patent itself describes exactly the work that was released in 1997.

A history of its evolution can be viewed via the news and plans section of the same site. The web archive can also verify that these sites present a true representation of its development.

Any advice you can give or if this email should be directed elsewhere, or if you require anything else from me to stop this blatant plagiarism would be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Mark Parker
LTKTBM developer.

You mean..

Moddb.com

Whats the dillio in english?

Yeah, can you explain the patent application and how it infringes on your software in plain English? I read both the patent and your website, and I have no idea what either are really about.

Its actually quite funny in a way, since they relate it to 'pheromones' which are silly multi agent systems people speak for storing history rather than the latest TBM methods which actually do some post processing on a genetic history structure. It caught my eye since you could have described the first version of LTKTBM (1997) in exactly the same manner, its progressed so far beyond that in the last 10 years that it became completely generic and a hullva lot more optimised.
.....
THE
BORG

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the agent's internal state is estimated in conjunction with an agent-based model of the environment.
13. The method of claim 6, wherein each agent is capable of diffusing pheromones to nearby places, thereby disseminating information for access by nearby agents
14. The method of claim 6, wherein the movements of the agents change their deposit patterns.
15. The method of claim 6, wherein the simulation integrates knowledge of threat regions, a cognitive analysis of the agent's beliefs, desires, and intentions, a model of the agent's emotional disposition and state, and the dynamics of interactions with the environment.

- Matrix

10. The method of claim 6, wherein the graph-structured environment is a rectangular lattice.

AQ2:

16. The method of claim 1, wherein the simulation involves urban warfare.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the simulation involves a computer game.

LTKTBM = AQ2: Licence To Kill The Borg Matrix -> Genetic testing (1997)

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the agent's internal state is estimated by examining the evolution of the agent's observed behavior.

see 1998 .plan

Their learning ability has now been tested for them to adjust to any changes in tactics you take with almost 100% success,

v2.0
LTBTBM = Licence To Breed The Borg Matrix -> Genetic Propogation (2004) and business strategy

18. The method of claim 1, wherein the simulation involves a business strategy

Pathfinder project

9. The method of claim 6, wherein the pheromone infrastructure runs on the nodes of a graph-structured environment.

see news posts & .plans

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the entities to be analyzed include human beings.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the prediction of the agent's future behavior takes into account the dynamics of the agent's interaction with the environment.
12. The method of claim 6, wherein each agent is capable of evaporating pheromones over time to remove inconsistencies that result from changes in the simulation.

15. The method of claim 6, wherein the simulation integrates knowledge of threat regions, a cognitive analysis of the agent's beliefs, desires, and intentions, a model of the agent's emotional disposition and state, and the dynamics of interactions with the environment.

Is there anything I missed?

Edited by (in order): mSparks, mSparks, mSparks, mSparks, mSparks

I'm confused.

Wraiyth wrote: I'm confused.

Looks like someone from the biggest militiary research agency in the US came to my site, went through it with a fine tooth comb and then submitted it as a software patent in their own name.

You would need to be pretty self involved to think that... theres what a couple of billion ppl in the world, theres a good chance some one else inveted something you did, and your example doesn't make much sense.

Regardless, it would be super awesome if you sued DARPA. It would elevate you to a level of cool so high that even Leilei would have trouble matching it.

TKAzA wrote: You would need to be pretty self involved to think that... theres what a couple of billion ppl in the world, theres a good chance some one else inveted something you did, and your example doesn't make much sense.

Thats what I thought at first, the example shows how each part of the patent pertains to a different element of the work I have described on my site. The only thing that is on my site that isn't on that patent is the ragdol, water and audio stuff, The only stuff they are missing from the AI side of my developer releases is the stuff that I stamped as classified, and didn't make public domain....

I could still believe that it is coincidence (although I admit I am pushed to really believe in 100% coincidences) but even so the point is that my site shows everything in that patent is covered under prior art and as such this patent should not get passed.

If it does, where do I stand? can I really be sued for breaking a patent that was submitted 10 years after I released my own work to the public domain? If it gets issued does that mean I have to pull the download from here and my site or just ban Americans from downloading it?

once a work is in the public domain you have ~a year or so to file before it can't be patented.

Basicly, you're right, they CAN'T patent something you put out there 10 years ago. I'd backup all your data, put it in a safe deposite box & then get ahold of them & tell them their patent is invalid because you did the same thing 10 years ago, show the info, etc.

I'd make sure your website is in the internet wayback machine too, just in case. Why?
Uspto.gov

they can decide the person who invented the patented item first. if you have PROOF you did it 10 years ago you can easily win. Hence the copy in the safe deposit box. The 'feds could very well try to go after you legally by getting a hold of your stuff & then you're proof is gone.

webarchive has been archiving the text content of my site since March 2003 the 1997 version was on a personal hosting site (that went offline) and linked out through an AQ2 clan called TNN.

That top post is a copy of an email I sent to USPTO just before copying it here. That BPAI seems like the right place to go (Im in the UK and the UK patent office couldn't offer any advice). might give them a call, but a call to the US aint going to be cheap, and I'm not exactly convinced it will get me anywhere.

That blows, man. It seems that the people who patented it are one of those patent mining corporations that just patent everything they find and hope nobody notices. I bet they just saw your shit and went OMG SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL, then converted it to legalspeak. They don't know what your algorithms mean or anything, they just want licenses.

Call the fuckers out.

Yeah I would definitely tread lightly though... I wouldn't want this to somehow get turned around an end up biting you in the ass. I'm on your side, I see way too many similarities for it to be just coincidence. I would pursue it to at least have some security the you beyond a reasonable doubt be prosecuted for your work, which I doubt you would anyway, but that isn't the point.

Supercowbob wrote: That blows, man. It seems that the people who patented it are one of those patent mining corporations that just patent everything they find and hope nobody notices. I bet they just saw your shit and went OMG SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL, then converted it to legalspeak. They don't know what your algorithms mean or anything, they just want licenses.

Call the fuckers out.

heh, that would actually be quite nice..... Unfortunately DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (and possibbly related to all the .mil ip addresses that were trawling my site 12-18 months ago), so the patent is actually kinda relevant to their area of business (They basically invented the AI which is taught in schools, which is flawed in so many ways).

Still not really sure where I stand if this thing gets granted, I know it shouldn't, but I also feel like a little fish screaming at the fisherman.

The fact that you have disclosed it to the public, been available for 10 years, anticipated and probably included in the prior art bases loses its novelty status. If they try to issue a patent for it, they won't succeed.

Reply from USPTO:

[THREAD ID:1-1K199H]

wtf is that?

its robot laguage O.o