Re: [Algorithms] Collision detection patent

[Pierre T. <p.t...@wa...>]

Let me copy here a recent post to comp.graphics.algorithms from Hong Lip
Lim. Worth reading.

===========================================

Re: Siggraph'2000 authors take my research result as their own (long)

In an earlier posting, Mr. Jones mentioned that  it was common
to have "parallel discovery" by independent teams.  I am afraid
Mr. Jones has missed the point.  I never question whether the
authors have discovered the technique on their own, although it
is strange that my technique can be reinvented after so many
years and published in a high caliber conference.  Whether
there is a parallel  discovery is a non-issue here.  The issues
have always been, and remain to be: (1) improper citing of
an earlier reference that covers many basic aspects of their work.
(2) the lack of mentioning of certain attributes of my earlier
approach which, in my opinion, are important to the next levels
of occlusion culling.

I have already talked about both issues in detail in my earlier
postings.  I do not want to delve into further technical details about
the second issue here.  Concerning the first issue: in the old days,
a paper accepted in a conference or journal would be read by very
few people (mostly the reviewers) before it was formally published
during the conference.  However, today the papers are posted
everywhere on the Internet.  The authors can bask in the glory by
promulgating their achievements early and widely.  However, they do
run the small risk of being detected by the irate author of a certain
early and forgotten paper who finds that his work has been copied.
The latter does not have any other option than to protest to the
former if he/she is worth the salt of a researcher.   After the authors
of the later paper have been informed of the earlier work before
the conference, they can no more hide under the excuse of
independent/parallel discovery.  Since they have chosen to publich
their paper prematurely and have benefited from such an action, it is
only fair that they have to either change the paper substantially,
or to withdraw it before the conference when its duplicity has
been pointed out.  This is exactly what the authors of the Siggraph
paper should do.  I have listed in detail in my earlier postings what I felt
the authors of the Siggraph paper have not done or have not done
enough in rectifying the deficiencies of their paper.

Mr. Jones' has quoted the case involving Leibnitz and Newton.
The severity between the two cases are very different as Newton was
totally unaware of Leibnitz work when he published his work.  Even
though it has never been doubted that Newton has independently
discovered his theory, Mr. Jones must be aware that the favoritism
towards Newton is often seen as one of the greatest injustice in the
history of scientific research.   Newton is undoubtedly one of the most
prominent figures in Science. It is also true that even now Calculus
have still been commonly and incorrectly regarded as being invented by
Newton.  However, what has been done by a prominent person and taken
as truth by many people does not necessarily imply that it must be
correct.  Surely Mr. Jone's heart belongs to Liebnitz and not Newton?

Still on the topic of parallel discovery, I have full proof to show that I
had independently discovered occlusion culling and developed my
full technique before the publication of Prof. Teller's first occlusion
culling technique in Siggraph'91.   Prof. Teller's technique at that
time was limited to isothetic surfaces.  On the other hand a technique
similar to mine just appeared in Siggraph'2000.  I should say that there
is at least some difference in maturity of technology between the two.
Should I went on to publish my paper without a single mention of
Prof. Teller's work?  When I prepared my paper in late 1991 I did
considered this possibility.  However, since Prof. Teller's paper had
already been published and I had read it before I submitted my paper,
I decided that I had to follow the standard rules of research and therefore
I went on to cite his work in my paper.  By doing so my original
discovery looked like also-runs to all readers who didn't know the
inside story, which might have contributed to the cold-shoulder I received
for my paper.  While the authors of other conferences have to honestly
abide by and endure the strict rules of academic publication, why should
some authors of a particular conference be exempted from the regulations?
Why should they be even allowed to use parallel discovery as an excuse
when this is not the case?

Mr. Jones mentioned that the authors of the Siggraph paper would
likely to work even more closely with me to address the situation
if they were not so preoccupied defending their reputations from
my accusations.   The unfolding of events was totally different from
what Mr. Jones has speculated.    What really happened
was that after the discovery of that the to-be published Siggraph
paper was very similar to my earlier paper, I had emailed to these
authors and the Siggraph paper committee.  However, the response
from Siggraph and the authors has turned from initially positive to one
that was very strange.   It appeared as if the people involved have
all at once toed the party line and united in ignoring my request. It was
only after the authors and Siggraph had totally ignored my repeated
pleas to find a solution and proceeded to publish their paper totally
unchanged that I had to air the grievance.  Therefore, saying that
the authors ignore me because I have attack them is putting the
cart before the horse.

Mr. Jones feels that the word plagiarism is overly strong.  As a
technical person myself, I have done detail analysis on this matter
and some research on plagiarism.  I knew that the use of the word
would ruffle many feathers and I myself never take pleasure in
using it.  Unfortunately, all the evidence and the definition of the word
just point to the current case as plagiarism.   If Mr. Jones disapproves
of my charge, he should provide counter-evidence and alternative
definition of plagiarism to show that it is invalid.  However, Mr. Jones
most likely can't even quote Siggraph's own official regulations to
support that.  As far as I know, the "not published previously in
SIGGRAPH" policy has never been publicly admitted by Siggraph.

Mr. Jones mentioned that the authors of the Siggraph paper
have themselves entered into the victim list of Siggraph.  This
sounds as if there have been a witch hunt and some holding
of kangaroo court.  If Mr. Jones feels that these authors are
innocent, he should provide more detail about what has
happened and why and how the authors have been victimized.

Thanks to Mr. Jones for telling publicly what has already been
an open secret, that the effective acceptance rule in Siggraph is
"not published previously in SIGGRAPH."   Unfortunately,
Siggraph always states in its call-for-paper that one condition for
its acceptance of papers is totally new and unpublished material.
As Mr. Jones has correctly noted, most people believe that Siggraph
papers are the final words in computer graphics.  If Siggraph can
officially and publicly admit that their effective aceptance rule, then
everybody would know that Siggraph proceedings could not be
treated as ordinary academic references.  The alternative would
be for Siggraph to eschew its secret rules and to adhere to the
universally accepted publication standard.  Needless to say,
the latter is a healthier policy.

Mr. Jones proposed that I should write directly to Siggraph and ACM.
From my dealing with Siggraph, I am very doubtful how much can I
achieve from my letter.  I am probably at the top of Siggraph's shoot-
at-sight list.  Nevertheless I am willing to give it a try.  Mr. Jones and
everyone who has an interest in this matter can also email to me
(hon...@ya...) their views towards Siggraph's publication
policy. I will include their opinions and send them to Siggraph and
ACM.  Please also state if you want your identity be kept confidential.