My dad forwarded me this yesterday. Maybe one of us can win some easy money! https://www.myninesigma.com/sites/public/_layouts/RFPs/NineSigma_RFP_65415.pdf The '055 Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and more particularly to accounting for periodicity when the pitch period is shorter than the adaptive and fixed codebook vectors. The '485 Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and more particularly to the ways in which speech decoders conceal data losses due to transmission errors.
Prior art for speech/pitch processing patents ($50k prize)
Started by ●September 4, 2009
Reply by ●September 4, 20092009-09-04
On 4 Sep, 18:47, David Gelbart <for-spam-o...@mailinator.com> wrote:> My dad forwarded me this yesterday. =A0Maybe one of us can win some easy > money! > > https://www.myninesigma.com/sites/public/_layouts/RFPs/NineSigma_RFP_... > > The '055 Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and > more particularly to accounting for periodicity when the pitch period > is shorter than the adaptive and fixed codebook vectors. The '485 > Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and more > particularly to the ways in which speech decoders conceal data losses > due to transmission errors....so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants free help to actually develop the stuff. F**k off! Rune
Reply by ●September 4, 20092009-09-04
On Sep 4, 9:55=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> > ...so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants > free help to actually develop the stuff.Hmm. That's not how I read it. This type of thing is a way to crowd- source the process of invalidating patents. If you're trying to challenge a patent, you post a reward for any prior art that can invalidate it. Joe Random sees the posting, digs in his archive and gives you proof of solid prior art. You go to court, strike the patent and Joe Random gets $$. Interesting idea. No clue how effective it is. Eric
Reply by ●September 4, 20092009-09-04
On 9/4/2009 11:24 AM, emeb wrote:> On Sep 4, 9:55 am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: >> ...so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants >> free help to actually develop the stuff. > > Hmm. That's not how I read it. This type of thing is a way to crowd- > source the process of invalidating patents. If you're trying to > challenge a patent, you post a reward for any prior art that can > invalidate it. Joe Random sees the posting, digs in his archive and > gives you proof of solid prior art. You go to court, strike the patent > and Joe Random gets $$. > > Interesting idea. No clue how effective it is. > > EricThere used to be a website that was a clearing house for such things, but I think it disappeared years ago. Some of the bounties for prior art on that site were pretty high and definitely made it worthwhile to respond if you had any info on prior art. I wish I could remember the name of the site, but since I think it's been defunct for a long time it's probably moot anyway. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
Reply by ●September 5, 20092009-09-05
>On 9/4/2009 11:24 AM, emeb wrote: >> On Sep 4, 9:55 am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: >>> ...so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants >>> free help to actually develop the stuff. >> >> Hmm. That's not how I read it. This type of thing is a way to crowd- >> source the process of invalidating patents. If you're trying to >> challenge a patent, you post a reward for any prior art that can >> invalidate it. Joe Random sees the posting, digs in his archive and >> gives you proof of solid prior art. You go to court, strike the patent >> and Joe Random gets $$. >> >> Interesting idea. No clue how effective it is. >> >> Eric > >There used to be a website that was a clearing house for such things, >but I think it disappeared years ago. Some of the bounties for prior >art on that site were pretty high and definitely made it worthwhile to >respond if you had any info on prior art. > >I wish I could remember the name of the site, but since I think it's >been defunct for a long time it's probably moot anyway. >I think it was something like patentbounty.com . The fun one there was a guy who won a bounty by shooting down a patent, because he had a patent on exactly the same thing issued a couple of years before. Perhaps that didn't help the people posting the bounty, or perhaps the new guy's terms were more reasonable. Either way, I think they paid up. Steve
Reply by ●September 5, 20092009-09-05
On 9/4/2009 8:16 PM, steveu wrote:>> On 9/4/2009 11:24 AM, emeb wrote: >>> On Sep 4, 9:55 am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: >>>> ...so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants >>>> free help to actually develop the stuff. >>> Hmm. That's not how I read it. This type of thing is a way to crowd- >>> source the process of invalidating patents. If you're trying to >>> challenge a patent, you post a reward for any prior art that can >>> invalidate it. Joe Random sees the posting, digs in his archive and >>> gives you proof of solid prior art. You go to court, strike the patent >>> and Joe Random gets $$. >>> >>> Interesting idea. No clue how effective it is. >>> >>> Eric >> There used to be a website that was a clearing house for such things, >> but I think it disappeared years ago. Some of the bounties for prior >> art on that site were pretty high and definitely made it worthwhile to >> respond if you had any info on prior art. >> >> I wish I could remember the name of the site, but since I think it's >> been defunct for a long time it's probably moot anyway. >> > I think it was something like patentbounty.com . The fun one there was a > guy who won a bounty by shooting down a patent, because he had a patent on > exactly the same thing issued a couple of years before. Perhaps that didn't > help the people posting the bounty, or perhaps the new guy's terms were > more reasonable. Either way, I think they paid up. > > SteveI dug around a little and the one I was thinking of was BountyQuest.com. Evidently it sort of just evaporated seven or eight years ago, but this article says somebody may be starting up something similar: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0034182858.shtml This connected article sheds a little light on what may have happened to it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020214/2343258.shtml -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
Reply by ●September 5, 20092009-09-05
"Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote in message news:Pgmom.112498$nL7.57860@newsfe18.iad...> On 9/4/2009 8:16 PM, steveu wrote: >>> On 9/4/2009 11:24 AM, emeb wrote: >>>> On Sep 4, 9:55 am, Rune Allnor<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote: >>>>> ...so somebody was awarded a couple of patents and now wants >>>>> free help to actually develop the stuff. >>>> Hmm. That's not how I read it. This type of thing is a way to crowd- >>>> source the process of invalidating patents. If you're trying to >>>> challenge a patent, you post a reward for any prior art that can >>>> invalidate it. Joe Random sees the posting, digs in his archive and >>>> gives you proof of solid prior art. You go to court, strike the patent >>>> and Joe Random gets $$. >>>> >>>> Interesting idea. No clue how effective it is. >>>> >>>> Eric >>> There used to be a website that was a clearing house for such things, >>> but I think it disappeared years ago. Some of the bounties for prior >>> art on that site were pretty high and definitely made it worthwhile to >>> respond if you had any info on prior art. >>> >>> I wish I could remember the name of the site, but since I think it's >>> been defunct for a long time it's probably moot anyway. >>> >> I think it was something like patentbounty.com . The fun one there was a >> guy who won a bounty by shooting down a patent, because he had a patent >> on >> exactly the same thing issued a couple of years before. Perhaps that >> didn't >> help the people posting the bounty, or perhaps the new guy's terms were >> more reasonable. Either way, I think they paid up. >> >> Steve > > I dug around a little and the one I was thinking of was BountyQuest.com. > Evidently it sort of just evaporated seven or eight years ago, but this > article says somebody may be starting up something similar: > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0034182858.shtml > > This connected article sheds a little light on what may have happened to > it: > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020214/2343258.shtml > > -- > Eric Jacobsen > Minister of Algorithms > Abineau Communications > http://www.abineau.comThe OP link was referring to http://www.articleonepartners.com/featured.php who headline as 'Research Reward Reform." A guy who writes Patents for companies once told me the whole idea behind Patents was to help engineers share knowledge, and that it's completely acceptable, from the P.Office point of view, that you can take another person's Patent and expand upon it to create a new over riding Patent. He didn't go into details though.
Reply by ●September 7, 20092009-09-07
I thinks the website was "bountyhunter", defunct... Would be easy money for a patent examiner, but it's forbidden of course :)
Reply by ●September 8, 20092009-09-08
On Sep 4, 12:47�pm, David Gelbart <for-spam-o...@mailinator.com> wrote:> My dad forwarded me this yesterday. �Maybe one of us can win some easy > money! > > https://www.myninesigma.com/sites/public/_layouts/RFPs/NineSigma_RFP_... > > The '055 Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and > more particularly to accounting for periodicity when the pitch period > is shorter than the adaptive and fixed codebook vectors. The '485 > Patent relates generally to a speech processing system, and more > particularly to the ways in which speech decoders conceal data losses > due to transmission errors.You can try to make more money the other way around: you help to identify large corporate infringer, the infringer gets nailed in court for willfull patent infringement, you collect your share of a settlement The key here is how to identify an infringer: it's pretty hard with most DSP patents implemented on DSP chips unless of course the patent is part of some open standard: in this case it appears to be some CS- ACELP speech coding standard adopted by ITU Note that the patent was assigned to Lucent - a key member of the telecom industry There is no way ITU will include a patent from small patent holder into one of their standards I think the only exception was 56K modem patent issued to Townshend - made the task of identifying patent infringers and suing them in court so much easier for him BTW, who cares about those old Lucent patents anyway ? They are obsolete by now - there are much better ways to deal with same issues of speech signal periodicities
