Aho Corasick source code needed, please help

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.
At least in the USA, "Mickey Mouse" will still belong to the Disney
corporation in 2400. That the same corporation made heaps of money
reusing children's faerytales whose own patents had expired makes this
quite ironic. Maybe those children's faerytales will soon be patented
by Disney and will require royalties to be expressed in any form?

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Joona I Palaste wrote:
... snip ...

Patents don't renew. Their purpose is to make techniques public,
in return for a limited period of exclusive use. Unlike
copyright.

Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
all the classic children's faerytales.

--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I said 'play as you've never played before', not 'play as IF you've never
played before'!"
- Andy Capp

 

[P.J. Plauger]

Then it appears I have made a mix-up in terms. The Disney corporation
is constantly renewing the *copyright* of "Mickey Mouse". It'll still
be the copyright property of the Disney corporation in 2400. As will
all the classic children's faerytales.

Not according to current law. The renewal period may be longer than
you (and others) like, but it's still finite.

You're also confusing more than just the terms; you're confusing the
concepts that go with them:

-- A patent is granted for an *idea* that's recognized by people
skilled in the relevant art as being inventive. It covers all uses
of the idea, but for a relatively short term in recent centuries.
By democratizing the "letters patent" by which monarchs once handed
out monopolies, the USA and other nations have demonstrably stimulated
innovation in numerous fields. Patent successes vastly outnumber the
handful of patent abuses that we hear about from time to time.

-- A copyright covers an *expression*, whether it be words, music,
pictures, or performance. It grants to the creator the right to
control how the expression is copied and exploited by others. As
the value of intellectual property has grown, so has the useful
lifetime of the more successful expressions. For individuals, it
was recently extended from the creator's lifetime plus fifty years
to the creator's lifetime plus seventy years.

Some factoids:

-- Disney has no right to copyright old fairy tales. They're in the
public domain and beyond the acquisitive reach of -- even you.

-- Disney may have benefited from the public domain status of older
works, but so too did Shakespeare in many of his plays. And so
did Bernstein et al. by coopting the plot of Romeo and Juliet for
West Side Story. But all of the above borrowers also produced a
*unique expression of lasting value.* That, IMO, gives them some
right to benefit from their value added. (Why don't you start with
the version of Cinderella where the wicked step mother and step
sisters die ignominiously at her hand, once she nabs the prince?
Might make a good Saturday morning cartoon these days. You too can
become as rich as Disney Studios, if you make the right decisions.)

-- One of my son's school friends happens to be the grandson of
Hoagy Carmichael. Grandpa's music is still generating a good
royalty stream, and his grandson is thus still benefiting from
Hoagy's obvious talents. He's not some grasping cartel, just
another kid with an inheritance. Should we review all inheritances
and decide which ones are morally justified? Or does the evil
enter when you pass ownership to a Class C coporation?

FWIW, I've made my living generating intellectual property in the
form of software, textbooks, and science fiction. When I do it
right, I make a good living. When I do it wrong, I try a different
strategy. If there weren't a good fabric of IP laws, and adequate
cultural acceptance of those laws, I'd probably do better shingling
roofs. I have some objections to the application of patent law to
software, and to some of the "thought crime" aspects of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, and I'll campaign in my own small way to
have the laws improved. But in general, I have to applaud the
efforts of governments all over the world to give IP a chance to
retain its value.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The Disney corporation has been very dutiful in renewing its patents.

Ah, patents are different I might be infringing a trademark or patent
but I'd not be infringing copyright. Don't confuse the two. You can't
[normally] patent an idea, only a process. A book is not patentable,
nor is a cartoon, but it is copyrightable.

 

[pete]

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

Not according to current law. The renewal period may be longer than
you (and others) like, but it's still finite.

You're also confusing more than just the terms; you're confusing the
concepts that go with them:

-- A patent
-- A copyright

A neglecting a third term, which is "registered trademark"

 

[osmium]

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

And thus the fourth category of intellectual property, the trade secret. No
legal protection, just a way of doing business, as in Colonel Sander's
"secret blend of 11 herbs and spices". Or whatever. To me, considering
modern chemistry, this doesn't seem plausible. A lot of mystique and
dependence on the gullibility of the general public. How hard could it be
to reverse engineer a bottle of Coca Cola?

 

[Dan Pop]

but I'd not be infringing copyright. Don't confuse the two. You can't
[normally] patent an idea, only a process.

As usual, you got it wrong. Patents are for ideas that can be
economically exploited. I don't have the foggiest idea about what kind of
process you're talking about.

A book is not patentable, nor is a cartoon, but it is copyrightable.

They are not copyrightable, they are *automatically* covered by
the copyright laws. It is ideas that may or may not be patentable,
depending on their degree of originality and usefulness.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

Hence, the secret formula of Coca Cola.

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

A neglecting a third term, which is "registered trademark"

It's not in the same ball park with the other two: it has absolutely
nothing to do with intellectual property.

Dan

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

How could it be secret? And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on
it, it has expired long ago...

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

 

[pete]

How could it be secret?
And whatever patent Coca Cola might have had on it,
it has expired long ago...

ITYM "it would have expired long ago"

The formula has never been patented.

 

[Dan Pop]

I believe it's classified as a "trade secret" or something to that
effect, which is treated differently than a patent or copyright.

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)

The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!

So, if you have a bright idea, be sure to patent it before someone else
has the same idea and wins the time-to-patent race ;-)

Dan

 

[Alan Balmer]

A trade secret is a secret as long as it can be kept secret. Even if a
chemical analysis of Coca Cola would be illegal, if someone started
producing a beverage with the very same formula, you'd have to prove that
they didn't reinvent it from scratch.

A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.

Not to mention that, if a chemical analysis is illegal, you can't
legally prove that the two beverages have the same formula ;-)

There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.

The modern patent laws have been invented with the very purpose of
removing the need of trade secrets: you publish the formula of your
beverage and, for a certain period of time, no one else is allowed to use
it. Since it is published, the competitors cannot claim that they have
reinvented it from scratch, even if they actually did!

Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Inventors have a choice as to whether they want to rely on
patent protection for a defined length of time, or trade secret
status for an undefined length of time.

IANAL but I was unaware that trade secrets caused nasal demons.

 

[Dan Pop]

A chemical analysis won't tell you how to duplicate it.

Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.

There are a number of ways of legally proving such a thing. In fact,
proving the same chemical analysis would not prove that products are
identical, either.

Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink?

Patent law encourages inventors to publish their inventions. It does
not require them to do so. Inventors have a choice as to whether they
want to rely on patent protection for a defined length of time, or
trade secret status for an undefined length of time.

That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.

Dan

 

[Alan Balmer]

Please elaborate. Chemical analysis is not the same thing as atomical
analysis, telling which chemical elements are present and in what
proportions.

Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis. However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample. Sorry if you don't believe that,
but further elaboration would require a course in analytical
chemistry, which I'm not inclined or qualified to give.

Where would the differences come from, in the case of a coke-like drink?

The proposition follows from the discussion above.

Actually, many laboratory analyses of Coca-Cola have been done, and
analysts have proclaimed that the formula must contain this or that
set of ingredients, but none has been able to give a formula for
duplicating the product. There was a publication of what was claimed
to be the original formula (from written notes in the Pemberton
estate, not analysis) but the formula has changed since then.

In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances, or even identifying them with any certainty, especially if
they have undergone some type of processing. (In spite of the weekly
miracles performed by the CSI teams on TV.)

That's why I said "removing the *need* of trade secrets" and NOT "removing
the trade secrets". These days, the period of exclusive usage granted by
a patent is, in most cases, orders of magnitude higher than the time it
takes to figure out a trade secret.

But not always. The inventor is gambling. Coca-Cola's formula, and the
variations on it, have been kept secret since 1886. Not that it
actually matters - even if the formula was published, it's too late to
stop that particular juggernaut.

It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together. In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.

Kentucky Fried Chicken goes even further. Their "secret blend of 11
herbs and spices" is partly made in two different places and combined
at a third location. Again, it doesn't matter much - the brand name is
what sells the chicken.

I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-) I'll stop wasting
people's time with it. Protection of inventions has sort of a nebulous
connection to programming, but fried chicken is way too far off base.

 

[Dan Pop]

Actually, what you call atomical analysis is a goodly part of chemical
analysis.

It's a purely physical analysis.

However, chemical analysis is a broad term, covering many
other analytical techniques as well. It's also quite limited. In a
complex substance or mixture of substances, the description of the
sample obtained by chemical analysis won't usually correspond to a
formula for duplicating the sample.

If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult. Especially when you don't need an exact duplication, merely
something that most people cannot organoleptically discern from the
original.

In general, we have only limited success in synthesizing natural
substances,

Coke hardly qualifies as a natural substance.

It is part of the mystique, though. Coca-Cola corporate rules are that
two people have possession of the formula, their identities are not
disclosed, and they never travel together.

Someone must actually "implement" the formula, on an industrial scale, in
each and every Coca-Cola factory around the world.

In actuality, I suspect
some of the people on the syrup production floor have a pretty good
notion as to what's in it.

The big secret is that there is no unique Coca-Cola formula. The thing
tastes differently in different parts of the world and the caffeine
contents is also locale-specific.

I'm afraid this is really getting off-topic ;-)

Otherwise, the [OT] tag of the subthread wouldn't be justified ;-)

Dan

 

[Keith Thompson]

If you know the exact composition of the sample, and this is possible,
figuring out a formula for duplicating the sample shouldn't be too
difficult.

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

 

[Michael Wojcik]

And thus the fourth category of intellectual property, the trade secret. No
legal protection, just a way of doing business, as in Colonel Sander's
"secret blend of 11 herbs and spices". Or whatever. To me, considering
modern chemistry, this doesn't seem plausible. A lot of mystique and
dependence on the gullibility of the general public. How hard could it be
to reverse engineer a bottle of Coca Cola?

Not hard, and formulations that are so close to the various Coca Colas
(there's more than one) as makes no difference are well-known. Coca
Cola's "secret formula" is a marketing gimick, not a piece of key IP.

William Poundstone has written an entertaining series of books titled
_Big Secrets_, _Bigger Secrets_, and so forth which expose numerous
trade secrets that aren't particularly secret. The KFC seasoning blend
is also among them. (Hint: There aren't 11 components, at least not in
significant amounts.) Of course it is possible that Poundstone's
research and reverse engineering are wrong in some cases, but I suspect
he's generally right.

These books are of course under copyright, which brings us neatly back
around.

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'm not enough of a chemist to be able
to justify my skepticism. Are you?

Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!
Remember, the Standard makes no claims about efficiency...

-Arthur

 

[Alan Balmer]

Given a chemical formula for X, you can produce X from scratch.
Of course, you may require lots of expensive equipment, possibly even
including an atom-smasher to get the rarer elements, ;-) and you may
not be clever enough to find a *convenient* *commercially-feasible*
method of mass production of X; but you can certainly duplicate X
given enough time and money! It's just a matter of sticking atoms
together!

Too much Startrek <G>. The universal synthesizer won't be invented for