Comment by hdevalence | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hdevalence | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For those curious for more details about "He scores high on the crackpot index, but not high enough to be completely discredited as a lunatic. His litigious nature and ability to wrangle the legal system in order to label everything "mine" is what keeps him in business.", see this review of "A New Kind of Science", which begins:

> Attention conservation notice: Once, I was one of the authors of a paper on cellular automata. Lawyers for Wolfram Research Inc. threatened to sue me, my co-authors and our employer, because one of our citations referred to a certain mathematical proof, and they claimed the existence of this proof was a trade secret of Wolfram Research. I am sorry to say that our employer knuckled under, and so did we, and we replaced that version of the paper with another, without the offending citation. I think my judgments on Wolfram and his works are accurate, but they're not disinterested.

> With that out of the way: it is my considered, professional opinion that A New Kind of Science shows that Wolfram has become a crank in the classic mold, which is a shame, since he's a really bright man, and once upon a time did some good math, even if he has always been arrogant.

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfra...

How can they have legal standing for such a claim, unless one of the authors had privileged access to Wolfram Research knowledge to misappropriate a trade secret? Seems to me that the principle of trade secrets should have a clear defense for independent rediscovery, although law often fails to reflect common sense.

> How can they have legal standing for such a claim, unless one of the authors had privileged access to Wolfram Research knowledge to misappropriate a trade secret?

The absence of legal standing obviously is something that can be raised once a lawsuit is underway, but it doesn't prevent the threat of a lawsuit, and many organizations will knuckle under to the threat of a lawsuit from a wealthy opponent just to avoid the expense of consulting with lawyers if there isn't a big cost in avoiding the lawsuit.

How would you refer to a trade secret in a scientific publication? The citations list where, when, and by whom the reference was published; a trade secret isn't a trade secret after it's published, right?

And is the employer in question the Santa Fe Institute? I am not sure whether to be incredulous about or cynically believing that they would go along with that.

Ah. I should have finished the review:

"The real problem with this result, however, is that it is not Wolfram's. He didn't invent cyclic tag systems, and he didn't come up with the incredibly intricate construction needed to implement them in Rule 110. This was done rather by one Matthew Cook, while working in Wolfram's employ under a contract with some truly remarkable provisions about intellectual property. In short, Wolfram got to control not only when and how the result was made public, but to claim it for himself. In fact, his position was that the existence of the result was a trade secret. Cook, after a messy falling-out with Wolfram, made the result, and the proof, public at a 1998 conference on CAs. (I attended, and was lucky enough to read the paper where Cook goes through the construction, supplying the details missing from A New Kind of Science.) Wolfram, for his part, responded by suing or threatening to sue Cook (now a penniless graduate student in neuroscience), the conference organizers, the publishers of the proceedings, etc. (The threat of legal action from Wolfram that I mentioned at the beginning of this review arose because we cited Cook as the person responsible for this result.)"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com