I was watching this Bloomberg video the other day featuring Shawn Carolan, the venture capitalist who backed the Siri electronic personal assistant startup then sold it to Apple. His was the closest I’d heard to a technical explanation of how Siri works and it surprised me because it sounded a lot like technology I remembered from years ago at Excite, the long-defunct search engine. Please look at the video and then meet me in the next paragraph. The part that excited me (no pun intended) is about four minutes in.
Okay, he said they used linguistic techniques to map blocks of words against 10 possible domains of expertise to figure out what the heck you are asking Siri to do, with the real breakthrough being treating the entire user question or order as a single linguistic unit.
Now let’s jump back to 1994. Eighteen years ago the search engine technology standard was set by Alta Vista, which spun out of Digital Equipment Corporation. Alta Vista pioneered web indexing with spiders dragging back web pages and it pioneered keyword searches. But if a keyword wasn’t present, Alta Vista would never return the web page you really needed because Alta Vista wasn’t smart enough.
Today the search engine standard is of course Google which uses PageRank to measure relevance by putting higher in the search results those pages that are linked to by more other pages. Adding to this (yes, I know I’m over-simplifying — feel free to correct me) Google knows a lot about synonyms and how word meaning changes in different contexts — basic linguistic tools that were probably out of Alta Vista’s reach simply because of the processing power required.
And then there was Excite, which was completely different. When I first visited the company in 1994 it was called ArchiText and was six Stanford students operating from their Los Altos garage. I helped them find their first customer and their first venture capitalist, Steve Coit of Charles River Ventures. Vinod came along later.
Most of the ArchiText boys were semantic systems majors and they took a very different technical approach to search than did Alta Vista or that other up-and-coming search engine, Yahoo, which in those days did the task the old fashioned way — by hand.
ArchiText used spiders, too, and built its own web index, but from the start the company was dedicated to finding useful search results even if they didn’t include any search terms from the original user query — seemingly an enormous job. Google does some of that through its elaborate algorithm, mentioned above, but Google’s technique is for the most part hard coded and brute force while ArchiText’s was very different and, well, elegant.
Here’s how the ArchiText (later Excite) search engine worked. Every query was stripped to its significant words — subjects, objects, verbs and adjectives — then each query became a vector in a multidimensional space with each unique word being a dimension. “How do space rockets stay in orbit when they are flying through space?” would become a vector string one unit long for each of those words but two units long for the word “space.” This bit of semantic DNA was then mapped against an index of millions of web pages that had all been similarly converted to multidimensional vectors.
Finding the most relevant results then became a simple matter of grabbing the N vectors (web pages) nearest to the query vector in that multidimensional space. It was quick, scalable, concentrated the processing load on the indexing where it didn’t bog down retrieval, and could reliably return pages like “Why satellites fall from the sky” that might answer the question even though none of the same words were used.
Compare that to the description of Siri from the Bloomberg video. Siri takes the entire query as a single block and maps it against a corpus composed of 10 domains of expertise looking for a fit, or perhaps for the best fit.
Technically it sounds darned similar to me, but then I’m forever condemned to remember old crap like this.
In the long run PageRank was more useful to the real world, Excite got sucked into @Home and the whole mess blew up with the dot-com meltdown, but not before all this technology was patented — patents owned today by Excite@Home’s creditors, which surprised me given that the original inventor, Graham Spencer, now works at Google.
Those old Excite patents, while nearing the end of their lives, could turn out to be very valuable to, say, a Google trying to compete with Siri on Android or even to an Apple trying to defend Siri from competitors.
I expect we’ll see those patents change hands sometime soon.
Graham Spencer wanted me to thank you for all the attention (and calls from the IP department) he is starting to get inside Google!!
My name is Doug and I used to go to school with Graham.
I lent him 5$ and he never paid me back.
Thanks for letting me know where to find him.
All you had to do was google the phrase “graham spencer”, assuming you know it’s the one who started Excite.
There were many patents around similr techniques used by people such as Inktomi who really were the market leaders after Altavista and befor Google hit it’s stride. The associated IP has ended up at Yahoo!
ooh, you mean Yahoo! has value after all?
this is going to be interesting to watch.
Sounds like you’re describing two completely different approaches to me.
I can get you to somewhere by telling you to turn left or right, or by using angles, or by telling you to “head towards” something, or “look out for” something. “Telling someone to get somewhere” is not the method, it’s the result. You’ve described similar results (working out what someone wants) but two completely different approaches (breaking a query down in to words and mapping connections between each of those words and others; and mapping “blocks of words against 10 possible domains of expertise”)
In other words, the first approach would be like drawing a map by working out all the possible routes from A to B, and every point on the way there (A2, A3, A4) and then using some algorithm to get the quickest route. But it then offers you several options to choose from and you decide.
The Siri approach is like asking a taxi driver to take you somewhere and the driver using his/her knowledge of the various routes, the time of day, the traffic conditions he/she has experienced recently and in the past, the urgency of the sound of the request, AND working out what you actually said behind the accent, the sound of the airport, the jet lag… And he/she then drives you there only very *rarely* asking you if you meant the Sleepwell Hotel, or the Sleepwell Guest House, or presenting a couple of alternative routes.
Same outcome, different methods. Not, by your description, a patent infringement.
If the patents were issued in 1994, then doesn’t the 17-year apply?
That is, the 17-year patent period..
if infringement occurred before the patent expired, you still have a case.
More to the point, were Excite’s patents even related to this particular point?
As far as I know, word vectors and searching utilizing them were used in one way or another since the sixties. Latent Semantic Analysis (which is a fancy version of this) was patented in 1988 which would seem to make the algorithm public now.
And what about Nuance and their patents? Isn’t it Nuance recognition algorithms that power Siri?
It’s my understanding is that Nuance is just used to convert the spoken words into text. The text is then sent to the Siri AI which really figures out everything. In fact, I’ve read somewhere that the voice recognition part is completely swappable and they could easily switch to another voice to text engine if a better one came along. The Siri AI that was developed with DARPA is the real heart of Siri. It seems to be something that is lost on everyone that has not used Siri or understands how it works.
Patent trolls are we becoming? Feeling threatened are we?
That’s why Apple, to me, has it right to protect its IP.
Because they’re relevant.
Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. “Thermonuclear war” has a tendency to burn everybody.
Unless you nuke them for orbit, just to make sure.
http://nukeitfromorbit.com/
The kind of high-dimensional vector space classification problem you describe is well-researched academically and there are many techniques for handling it. Unless Siri is actually using the same (or an extremely similar) implementation to what Excite used, they could easily be doing essentially the same thing conceptually without violating any Excite patents.
same thing with a lot of the cellphone patents, I suspect. problem is, patents are purposely written quite broadly so anything infringes. you don’t patent printing in green ink, you patent marking objects with contrasting marks.
The algorithm you are describing is what most text indexing engines use and is pretty standard, well researched and proven. The TF-IDF score is usually used as the value for each word/coordinate. Im sure Sir uses it to a certain degree. So does, eg, Lucene.
The Siri technology … (speech-to-text translation is performed by Nuance, natural language processing to translate transcribed text into ‘parsed text’, and ‘question & intent’ analysis to analyze the parsed text to detect user commands and actions, which are sent though API’s to various 3rd party services eg. Wolfram Alpha, Yelp, etc.) … is not particularly bleeding edge and various similar methods have been available for many years.
Where Apple have scored is integrating the Siri technology with 3rd party services through proprietary APIs so that relevant and interesting actions and results are returned.
Google “support vector machine”.
An SVM is a very powerful classifier, but, Stephane isn’t being very helpful as to how he thinks it should be applied. There’s more to the problem than classification.
Disclaimer: These 2 cents come from a person who has never tried Siri…
Nevertheless, I find Siri a very interesting example of what technology might offer us. Especially the fact that it is a combination of a human-centric input interface (speech recognition) coupled with a search algorithm which utilizes human-form-query phrasing and seems to be somewhat malleable.
Using google (or other keyword- or fulltext based search engines), how would you go about formulating/entering a search phrase to with the highest certainty reach a webpage describing the length of the main span of the Golden Gate Bridge? Short answer: You wouldn’t. Even the most precise search query might lead you to a page which states something like “At 1298 meters the main span of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge is slightly longer than that of the Golden Gate Bridge”
Which, considering that HTML originally was a format for structured text (not for visual gimmickry), is just plain dumb.
OTOH, If you were able to specify, that you are looking for a web-page or a portion of such, describing the Golden Gate bridge, which would contain the terms “main span” and “length”, then we would be getting somewhere…
This can either be achieved through complex search term phrasing (the following formulation is from a structure/context sensitive full-text search engine I had the pleasure to work on) such as: ” (“main span” AND length) WITHIN “Golden Gate” “, or you could enter the query in “correct english” such as “What is the length of the main span of the Golden Gate bridge?”
The grammar in itself is unequivocal (see those of’s?) and could probably find the exact measure out of any wikipedia article without much ado (and not only get you a link to the website).
The brilliance of combining speech recognition with the search technology is, that if you have to type in the query a long (correctly formulated) english sentence is tedious to enter, whereas orally, it’s a breeze.
The only downside is, it’s extremely language dependent. I’m no linguist, I just know a handful of languages and the availability of clear subjugating keywords (see that “of” in english example) is not to be taken as granted. For instance in Finnish (which inherits much of it’s grammar from latin) the same natural language query would read “Mikä on Golden Gate sillan pääkaaren pituus?” As you can see, the Finnish language does not use the “of” as indicator of subdomain/attribute, instead it uses the genetive declination (sorry, my linguistic terminology is not up to the job). The Finnish query sentence could be expressed (wrongly) in english as “What is the Golden Gate bridge’s main span’s length?”, except that the genetive is not always unequivocally discernible. Alas, with help of local experts even this can be managed.
In the weakness of the keyword&fulltext engines lies a surprising strength. Firstly, they need not be localized/linguistically adapted. Secondly the search phrase (as being language-dependent) allows the user to (albeit imperfectly) narrow down the languages of documents to be displayed.
In the end a Siri-like PA also needs a customized locale-ized database, which further adds to the amount of localization work needed. As many here have pointed out, Siri was not built for the iPhone 4S from the ground, instead it used existing components. Thus also it will be a wait until Siri becomes globally available.
Am I the only one or do all these crap patents seem a little obvious to you too?
I find this business of Google having to buy Motorola just for the patent collection distasteful. To the one with the most lawyers goes the spoils???
I say scrap the whole patent and copyright system……….
Sure, that’s easy to say, but it would put an end to most innovation since anyone could simply steal anyone else’s ideas. There is no easy answer, but the 17 year rule seems likes a happy medium to keep innovators innovating, but copycats in a 17 year hold period to cool their boots. Yes, troves of patents are worth big money, but ending patents would bankrupt many innovative firms.
“…it would put an end to most innovation since anyone could simply steal anyone else’s ideas…”
While I agree with you that we should not throw out or patent system, one look at the likes of Samsung shows that, even with patents in place, there’s very little one can do to stop one company from ripping off another company’s designs and intellectual properties.
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
Go through the several pages of visual comparisons in the above link. It’s astonishing what Samsung has gotten away with while Android fans claim Apple is making a fuss about nothing.
I’m sure it’s just total coincidence that everything in the smartphone and tablet space now looks like (poorly designed) copies of what Apple did first and looks nothing like what they did before Apple released their products.
It’s not the alledged rip-off that matters, it’s how it is resolved in the end. Either the patent can be declared “too broad” or otherwise invalid, or the disputing parties will settle on their own with monetary payments or a sharing of patents. Apple can employ lawyers to patent everything it does. The validity of those patents remains to be tested.
Why is it that when someone copies Apple equipment and UI so close that someone cannot tell the difference……. then Apple uses any form of text to speech, or transmitting signals, or just anything and some one has a 15 year old patent that is non descriptive, non specific, and just out right …… “stuff happens here”, that Apple copies and everyone else is innovative???
Its getting scary out there. Can I patent anti-gravity and be non specific on how I do it? How about teleportation…replication… etc.
One day my kids will be rich. LOL
en
It also has some similarities to Crystal Semantics (which was based on a defunct EU projects to map the English language in a database) who use clusters of lexemes (groups of words that are associated) so AT&T Park, Barry Bond, MLB, Giants are all lexemes of the sport of baseball to get intent. It would be also interesting to find out how Hunch gets intent as well
Here we go again.
This non story of possible patent infringement, based on nothing but a vague recollection by Cringely, will get picked up by the rest of the media.
The iHaters will then scream from the rooftops that Apple stole Siri.
Then after a week, the story will be proven to be complete and utter bullshit and everyone can go on living their lives again.
I don’t think that’s what I wrote at all, nor is it even a logical interpretation of what I have written. What I believe to be the case is these possibly useful patents are in limbo and I am sure their holders will be open to offers that could logically come from several directions. That’s not any company stealing anything from another.
“I don’t think that’s what I wrote at all, nor is it even a logical interpretation of what I have written.”
—- Hmmm actually most of us seem to think that is the case????
” What I believe to be the case is these possibly useful patents are in limbo and I am sure their holders will be open to offers that could logically come from several directions. ”
—- if the patents are “useful” then they must be valid. And tied in to what Apple is doing. ?????? Just a thought,,
“That’s not any company stealing anything from another.”
—— Than is what these patent suits are about… mostly, except its really about the money. No one sues when technology comes out… they wait until it make it big,,, then people sue. I am surprised that Apple has not been sued cause someone somewhere has a patent on “fruit names” ..
Just a thought,
Apple was sued…by the Beatles. They settled by agreeing not to get in to the music business. Later, they invented the iPod and iTunes and got in to the music business in a big way.
[…] more in the full article here. MacDailyNews Take: You know why Cringely’s eyes are brown? ‘Cause he’s full […]
Much like the burst.com patents that disappeared into thin air when Apple challenged them and won, unlike MS which paid $60 million to license them.
Apple challenged them and won? Where did you hear that? Apple paid Burst $10 million, which isn’t winning.
What happened was a Supreme Court decision effectively changed the law between the Microsoft settlement and the Apple settlement greatly diminishing the power of smaller IP holders like Burst. But they still won and they still got $10 million.
Ha.. Siri backwards is Iris… it’s got an eye on you 😉
All this tech watching me has me feeling like I’m the boxed product on the shelf.
I can hear you reply
[…] who claims the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explains: // Here’s how the ArchiText (later Excite) search engine worked. Every query was stripped […]
[…] who claims the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explains: // Here’s how the ArchiText (later Excite) search engine worked. Every query was stripped […]
[…] claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: Here’s how the ArchiText (later Excite) search engine worked. Every query was stripped to its […]
I’ll bet that the ArchiText boys programmed in FORTRAN.
Frankly, I think the patent system worked find before the patent office decided to allow patents on algorithms and business methods. Ditto on the copyright system. It wasn’t broke before Congress extended the copyright period beyond 56 years.
Does anyone know by what streach of the imagination, copyrights should last longer that patents?
By the stretch that says that patented technologies should enter the public domain sooner because of their presumed utility, and that copyrights can last longer because society isn’t being held back by Disney’s monopoly on Mickey Mouse’s likeness.
I’m not endorsing this completely, I’m just saying that’s the argument. The reality is that copyright holders stop innovating and start bribing politicians, while patent holders tend to see their patents obsolete within 17 years anyway. Though that may start changing as every new technology inspires lawsuits by holders of precedent patents.
Many people would argue that culture–usually considered to be pretty important to society–is indeed held back by copyright law. To use your example, Mickey Mouse is 100 years old, and yet Disney wages unceasing war against creators for works that incorporate his image–from the Art Pirates, to Family Guy, and beyond. Zombie copyrights similarly threaten academic research in the liberal arts. The lone inventor, in any field, is a myth. Progress is built on the shoulders of our predecessors.
[…] Around the 3:20 mark, Carolan discussed Siri’s unique approach of taking all words as “one big block” and mapping “those strings of words across” a group of 10 domains of expertise. This approach sounds familiar to at least one technology journalist who claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: […]
[…] claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: “ Here’s how the ArchiText (later Excite) search engine worked. Every query was stripped […]
[…] Around the 3:20 mark, Carolan discussed Siri’s unique approach of taking all words as “one big block” and mapping “those strings of words across” a group of 10 domains of expertise. This approach sounds familiar to at least one technology journalist who claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: […]
[…] was reading an interesting article by one of my favorite bloggers, Bob Cringely, where he brought up the notion that maybe Apple’s […]
> But if a keyword wasn’t present, Alta Vista would never return the
> web page you really needed because Alta Vista wasn’t smart enough.
I actually miss this. I’m frustrated wasting time on suggested web pages that don’t contain my keywords. I know I can add a ‘+’ to every keyword, but that’s inconvenient.
Agreed. Am I the only one that has noticed the “+” doesn’t make any difference?
‘+’ works for me on Google searches (with out the sng-quotes of course). Support for that feature on other search sites (job sites for me now), is sporadic 😉
[…] True, Android has been able to do this for some time, but that is not the main purpose of this post.Robert Cringely has highlighted an interview with Shawn Carolan, a managing director at Menlo Ventures, where he […]
Actually, back to text search, I always liked the operator “near”. It was either Altavista or Lycos that implemented that, if I remember correctly. “Near” would get me the results I was looking for faster than anything else.
[…] Around the 3:20 mark, Carolan discussed Siri’s unique approach of taking all words as “one big block” and mapping “those strings of words across” a group of 10 domains of expertise. This approach sounds familiar to at least one technology journalist who claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: […]
[…] claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← My Prize […]
I’ll always remember AltaVista as the company that paid a million dollars for a URL. Ah, the days of cyber-squatting.
So you’re sayin that a defunct company should get to take in big bucks because someone else finally got it to work?
As someone who’s worked in IT for nearly 20 years, I can’t think of anything that software patents, or hell even copyrights, do to help actual IT workers make money. I think all this patent payoff crap is severely hurting the industry. How many companies are paying million of dollars to the fucking lawyers to make sure the patent trols are all getting fed? How many more engineers, developers, and programmers could be employed using this money instead?
This is why I’ve never filed a patent at my company. By and large, software and business process patents are in a clear ethical and philosophical sense – evil. In just about every instance that I’ve seen, the holder of the patent does no development or implementation – instead, filing a claim when someone does the hard work to make something work – many times without knowledge of the patents in question – and end up forfeiting their profit on a technicality if they lose.
For large companies, the need to defend themselves against marauding patent trolls forces them into the game. Small companies can’t afford to produce patents, much less execute patent searches on every possible permutation, or defend themselves in this manner – and I see a real danger to innovation if large companies decided to declare open season on the small-fry.
Also – if your article was meant to make me supportive of the Excite patent holders, I think it had the opposite effect. What I read was, “patent holder sat on their laurels for 17 years without implementing anything new based upon it – and now that someone else did, may stick it to them.” In the interview the venture capitalist mentioned that the technology was based at least partially upon work done at a government research lab; by definition that would make it public domain (if it isn’t classified – which I have to assume not).
As far back as the 1980s I was doing multidimensional matrix math on a computer – does that count as prior art? Patenting computer software negates the expressiveness available – and in my mind is akin to patenting a novel or short story. That would be unthinkable – yet we continue to do just that in the software space. Finally, software that is free to see and free to copy would allow us to provide more opportunities for integrating different systems together or creating derivative works that provide greater benefit to our end users.
[…] regarding voice recognition that was owned by Excite. Cringely published the suggestion on his blog after watching a Bloomberg interview with Shawn Carolan of Menlo Ventures, an investor in […]
[…] Around the 3:20 mark, Carolan discussed Siri’s unique approach of taking all words as “one big block” and mapping “those strings of words across” a group of 10 domains of expertise. This approach sounds familiar to at least one technology journalist who claimed the method is similar to patents owned by search portal Excite in 1994. Robert Cringely explained: […]
[…] it is, speaking about the Siri’s envy group: Robert X. Cringley, that is Mark Stephens, came recently with an idea that Siri may be using the search algorithms […]
You probably meant ‘symbolic systems’ majors. Stanford doesn’t have a semantic systems major, as far as I know.
But they like to talk about it a lot: https://www.ieee-icsc.org/ICSC2011/
Bob, you hooked up the Excite guys with their first VC?
Damn, fella. Nuclear plants, interviewing Gadhafi, et al. Your career has been like the Forrest Gump of tech,
I wonder which movie star of the future will play you in the movie.
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Siri may infringe old Excite patents – Excite’s vector model of mapping but its likely to be close to being out of patent […]
Well done, sir
Well done indeed
Way to rep Jamaica Planes
Love, J-Lo
I was cussing my iFone about a month ago. . . and I think it understood me and got excited. It started cussing back. Then it started giving me little electric shocks. I cussed it some more and it seemed to calm down. Over the next week it grew two little bumps on the bottom — which turned into legs! The little bastard ran off!
[…] deserves this for its aggression with patents. In fact, Apple deserves a lot worse and Cringely thinks that Apple might get sued for patent violations in Siri, which many people tactlessly claim to be an Apple “innovation” (there is prior art). […]
homecoming dress…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Siri may infringe old Excite patents – Cringely on technology[…]…
thanked!
[…] solution harkens back to a previous column about Siri in which I compared it to the old Architext search engine technology from 1993. […]
provide information and add value, you’re on…
the right track to being a good blogger!a regular blog needs a degree of commitment and attention, but it does become easier over time. blogging keeps you alert for blog ideas to write, ready to share your thoughts and business insights,…