Context:
On September 18, 2001, Matt and Gail Taylor were issued patent no. 6,292,830 by the US Patent and Trademark Office. There has been much discussion in the context of KnewCo as to what this means, how KnewCo might use the patent, etc.

A conversation was held at knOwhere on Friday, 21 September to talk about some of these issues. Present were Matt, Gail, Bill Cockayne, Peter, Todd, Tamara and Jeff J..

This page has been created to help facilitate the continuing dialog as the conversations moves forward. The text below comes from notes I took during the session. My notes tend to be key word/concept oriented as opposed to anything approaching full capture, so I'm not sure how well they'll stand up on their own. If you were there, these notes will help you remember, if you were not there they should give you some idea of the territory we covered. If you were there and feel that I've missed something important, or misrepresented something, please let me know. Tamara was also taking notes and her Word document can be downloaded by clicking here. Photos of the walls used during the session are interspersed below, click on the thumbnail image to get a larger image. The session was video taped if we need to go back in for finer detail.

Matt asked me to print copies of two documents from his website (the Invention Summary and the piece on Memory) as well as the claims, prior to the meeting. The claims (and the rest of the patent) are available on the USPTO website.

An e-mail archive page has been created to track messages relevant to these conversations.

Jeff

Conversation:
To a large extent this was, by design, a conversation between Matt and Bill.

Matt starts by giving a brief history of the Taylor patent.

In 1997 a provisional patent application was filed that focuses primarily on Subsystem 1, and mentioned Subsystems 2 and 3. In 1998 a much more complete document was filed that included discussion of all 6 subsystems. This version was clearly deficient in a number of areas however. Another provisional patent application was filed in November 2000, containing a variety of updates from Matt's website.

The patent has always been seen as part of an IP strategy that also utilizes trademarks, trade secrets, trade dress, copyright, etc. The philosophy has generally been one of "open source." See info on Matt's website for background on the patent and IP strategy in general.

Conceptual model of the patent existing at the top layer, there's a layer or two below that, and then the "real work" layer. This last layer is where the work is done that translates the patent into useful tools and processes.

In a sense, the patent could be seen as vague or soft, potentially vulnerable to attack. It must therefore be backed up by a number of supporting patents, trade secrets, trade dress, and other forms of IP.

Matt give example how the patent could be directly applied to the entire real estate system to achieve significant cost savings. What are the other vertical markets out there where this could be easily applied?

Subsystem 3 contains 2 radically different components, first the CyberCon Executive Decision System, and second a series of agent based, object oriented "whats its."

The greatest value in the patent could simply be the level of thought and detail that the patent application process has forced us to produce.

Bill: Could the system and method could be applied to and provide insight into other emergent processes, from the outside looking in?

Matt: In other words, from a political standpoint, could it be used to provide information about what al Qaeda is doing in the Middle East? Yes, if viewed at the level of pattern language. We could look something taking place during a DesignShop, at something happening politically, and at something happening in the economy and conclude that all are at the exact same point from a pattern language viewpoint.

Bill: Can we translate the patent text into computer code?

Matt has thought a lot about this, but found that the current object oriented tool kit is too small. Needs to be about 2x as big to enable Matt to write directly into computer code.

(11.15) Bill sees three ways to move forward, 1. build systems around the IP that we currently have; 2. apply the IP to interesting, solvable problems (i.e., real estate); 3. put together a system using currently available or easily modifiable tools.

Discussion about Pattie Maes' work, including Firefly (which was bought by Microsoft to create Passport). Chris Allen and Tonto is mentioned.

Bill: We want to solve a problem, not invent technology.

Lots of discussion around how tools could be developed based on the modeling language. Bill really likes the implementation of the 7 Domains Model in the Delphi that was recently created for our work with Notre Dame. Some additional functionality would be easy to add and would make the tool much more useful. For example, the system should facilitate the ability to craft a response over time before submitting it. We should create similar tools out of the Creative Process and other key models.

We have a process, and we have tools (including StarTruck).

The team to do this would include design, web (network), Flash, human interface/user interface.

Matt asks if any successful products have theories behind them. Bill comments that all successful products have a theory of some sort behind them. Certainly not an all encompassing theory like that represented in the patent, but at least a theory of what people want/need.

Combining version 1 of our Flash modeling language tool kit with the StarTruck tool could lead to something pretty powerful.

Gail comments that a very important feature of our processes is that we force people to ship a product. We need to remember and incorporate this in all tools that we develop.

Discussion over the power of models, people are looking for - and will grab onto anything - that helps them get their work done. Bill relates his experiences at Stanford, including the Business School professor who uses a slew of personality models, Meyers-Briggs, etc. on and with his students. He would love to have something integrated, a coherent set of models and methodology.

Bill and Gail talking about how popular Enneagrams are these days. Many titles currently available at Keplers, including The Enneagram Made Easy. Franklin-Covey is another example of the popularity of tools, even if there's not much behind them.

Matt and Gail talk about the Rose Templates they have done with the modeling language.

(12.30) Matt asks about strategy, what would we do with a 7 Domains model software tool once developed?

Bill: We'd put it out there for free, attracting people to use it. From day one the tool should have certain network capability.

Developing and then "giving" these software tools away could be very useful for getting people into knOwhere, into the Weak Signal Research workshops for example.

Build it, then figure out what people will pay for. Bill relates the story of the firm that developed a precision drug delivery device, a very expensive piece of equipment. Initially the company was going to give away the machine and charge for the drugs, but it turned out that the real value was the information about the drugs actually being delivered. Previously there had never been any way to track this info. Now the company gives away the machine and the drugs and charges the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies for the information.

Similarly, we just build some tools and then take a look at how people are using them. From that we figure out how to make our money. We will put people and tools together and see what people ask for. That will be our product.

Versions of the models for PocketPCs.

Discussion about popularity and utility of "Web-X," virtual file sharing.

Bill comments that he hasn't heard anyone in the Valley talking about it, but that we are moving into a period of significant government spending. These funds almost completely dried up 10 years ago, but they will very soon be back. People should recognize this and gear up for it.

Gail recalls the "knOwhere to go" boxes that have been discussed in years past. Each box customized for the individual. What could our virtual "knOwhere to go" boxes look like?

Bill: The next step is to build the tools.