Re: some information about anchor modeling

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:38:13 -0700 (PDT), vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

>(ii) that there are parts of the paper "Anchor Modeling" (AM) that are
>of significance, but that these parts are actually only specific cases
>of the ideas from my paper published in 2005 on my website
>http://www.dbdesign10.com and on this user group. My paper was
>published four years before the AM paper and was intensely discussed
>within this user group.
>
> :
>
>(iii)
>I explained my reasons for filing the complaint to Springer in 27
>arguments. Each argument is brief and precisely explained. As one can
>see from their above-pasted response, I received a generalized
>response from Springer, that is, they did not respond to any of my
>arguments specifically. Had Springer shown one of these 27 arguments
>to be false, I would have accepted this as a legitimate rejection of
>my complaint.
>
>I also think my work solves certain significant issues pertaining to
>other scientific fields, including Logic, Semantics and Mathematics
>(Model Theory, for instance). I defined certain truth conditions, see
>my paper, =93Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines=94, Sections 3.1.2
>and 3.2.1 on http://www.dbdesign11.com
>Thus, the issue in question is the plagiarism of a work that is of
>importance for a group of scientific fields.
>
>Working on this case, I realized that the participants in user groups
>have limited opportunities to protect their ideas. I believe members
>of the user group have the right to give and take information when it
>is related to the activities of the group.
>
>Vladimir Odrljin

I'm not familiar with the publication involved, but unless it is a text book or a refereed journal, few publishers will respond to complaints concerning accuracy of content.

If you are seeking credit for your ideas, IANAL, so be sure to consult with a qualified IP attorney (be sure to go to an IP specialist, *not* a general practitioner). However, you need to be aware that under US law, only rights pertaining to *registered* copyrights can be legally enforced ... the implicit copyright granted by virtue of authorship under the Berne convention carries absolutely no legal weight.

You may have some limited options if you can prove that, in every case where the material appeared online, an explicit copyright notice was included (even if the copyright was unregistered), and also can prove that the ideas of the paper in question really are based on your work (i.e. that the paper is a "derivative" work). But even so the odds of a satisfactory outcome are not terribly good ... court decisions in cases involving unregistered copyrights are entirely ad hoc. If you somehow could make it a "prior art" patent case it would have (slightly) more chance of success.

Unfortunately, online "publishing" by individuals in most cases really is not considered publishing under the law. Too many authors are unaware of this and of the consequences of putting their ideas online. In many cases all the authors have accomplished is to add their ideas to the public domain.

Good luck.
George Received on Thu Jul 19 2012 - 18:27:07 CEST