Google creates a Code Jam

So you think you can code- here is a contest for All – programmers AND students AND professionals

Check the enthralling competition yourself at https://code.google.com/codejam

Open Source Compiler for SAS language/ GNU -DAP

A Bold GNU Head
Image via Wikipedia

I am still testing this out.

But if you know bit more about make and .compile in Ubuntu check out

http://www.gnu.org/software/dap/

I loved the humorous introduction

Dap is a small statistics and graphics package based on C. Version 3.0 and later of Dap can read SBS programs (based on the utterly famous, industry standard statistics system with similar initials – you know the one I mean)! The user wishing to perform basic statistical analyses is now freed from learning and using C syntax for straightforward tasks, while retaining access to the C-style graphics and statistics features provided by the original implementation. Dap provides core methods of data management, analysis, and graphics that are commonly used in statistical consulting practice (univariate statistics, correlations and regression, ANOVA, categorical data analysis, logistic regression, and nonparametric analyses).

Anyone familiar with the basic syntax of C programs can learn to use the C-style features of Dap quickly and easily from the manual and the examples contained in it; advanced features of C are not necessary, although they are available. (The manual contains a brief introduction to the C syntax needed for Dap.) Because Dap processes files one line at a time, rather than reading entire files into memory, it can be, and has been, used on data sets that have very many lines and/or very many variables.

I wrote Dap to use in my statistical consulting practice because the aforementioned utterly famous, industry standard statistics system is (or at least was) not available on GNU/Linux and costs a bundle every year under a lease arrangement. And now you can run programs written for that system directly on Dap! I was generally happy with that system, except for the graphics, which are all but impossible to use,  but there were a number of clumsy constructs left over from its ancient origins.

http://www.gnu.org/software/dap/#Sample output

  • Unbalanced ANOVA
  • Crossed, nested ANOVA
  • Random model, unbalanced
  • Mixed model, balanced
  • Mixed model, unbalanced
  • Split plot
  • Latin square
  • Missing treatment combinations
  • Linear regression
  • Linear regression, model building
  • Ordinal cross-classification
  • Stratified 2×2 tables
  • Loglinear models
  • Logit  model for linear-by-linear association
  • Logistic regression
  • Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

    sounds too good to be true- GNU /DAP joins WPS workbench and Dulles Open’s Carolina as the third SAS language compiler (besides the now defunct BASS software) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_language#Controversy

     

    Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAP_(software)

    Dap was written to be a free replacement for SAS, but users are assumed to have a basic familiarity with the C programming language in order to permit greater flexibility. Unlike R it has been designed to be used on large data sets.

    It has been designed so as to cope with very large data sets; even when the size of the data exceeds the size of the computer’s memory

    Chapman/Hall announces new series on R

    Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA - Cohen H...
    Image via Wikipedia
    R Authors get more choice and variety now-
    http://www.mail-archive.com/r-help@r-project.org/msg122965.html
    We are pleased to announce the launch of a new series of books on R. 
    
    Chapman & Hall/CRC: The R Series
    
    Aims and Scope
    This book series reflects the recent rapid growth in the development and 
    application of R, the programming language and software environment for 
    statistical computing and graphics. R is now widely used in academic research, 
    education, and industry. It is constantly growing, with new versions of the 
    core software released regularly and more than 2,600 packages available. It is 
    difficult for the documentation to keep pace with the expansion of the 
    software, and this vital book series provides a forum for the publication of 
    books covering many aspects of the development and application of R.
    
    The scope of the series is wide, covering three main threads:
    • Applications of R to specific disciplines such as biology, epidemiology, 
    genetics, engineering, finance, and the social sciences.
    • Using R for the study of topics of statistical methodology, such as linear 
    and mixed modeling, time series, Bayesian methods, and missing data.
    • The development of R, including programming, building packages, and graphics.
    
    The books will appeal to programmers and developers of R software, as well as 
    applied statisticians and data analysts in many fields. The books will feature 
    detailed worked examples and R code fully integrated into the text, ensuring 
    their usefulness to researchers, practitioners and students.
    
    Series Editors
    John M. Chambers (Department of Statistics, Stanford University, USA; 
    j...@stat.stanford.edu)
    Torsten Hothorn (Institut für Statistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 
    München, Germany; torsten.hoth...@stat.uni-muenchen.de)
    Duncan Temple Lang (Department of Statistics, University of California, Davis, 
    USA; dun...@wald.ucdavis.edu)
    Hadley Wickham (Department of Statistics, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA; 
    had...@rice.edu)
    
    Call for Proposals
    We are interested in books covering all aspects of the development and 
    application of R software. If you have an idea for a book, please contact one 
    of the series editors above or one of the Chapman & Hall/CRC statistics 
    acquisitions editors below. Please provide brief details of topic, audience, 
    aims and scope, and include an outline if possible.
    
    We look forward to hearing from you.
    
    Best regards,Rob Calver (rob.cal...@informa.com)
    David Grubbs (david.gru...@taylorandfrancis.com)
    John Kimmel (john.kim...@taylorandfrancis.com)

     

    R for Predictive Modeling:Workshop

    A view of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge...
    Image via Wikipedia

    A workshop on using R for Predictive Modeling, by the Director, Non Clinical Stats, Pfizer. Interesting Bay Area Event- part of next edition of Predictive Analytics World

    Sunday, March 13, 2011 in San Francisco

    R for Predictive Modeling:
    A Hands-On Introduction

    Intended Audience: Practitioners who wish to learn how to execute on predictive analytics by way of the R language; anyone who wants “to turn ideas into software, quickly and faithfully.”

    Knowledge Level: Either hands-on experience with predictive modeling (without R) or hands-on familiarity with any programming language (other than R) is sufficient background and preparation to participate in this workshop.


    Workshop Description

    This one-day session provides a hands-on introduction to R, the well-known open-source platform for data analysis. Real examples are employed in order to methodically expose attendees to best practices driving R and its rich set of predictive modeling packages, providing hands-on experience and know-how. R is compared to other data analysis platforms, and common pitfalls in using R are addressed.

    The instructor, a leading R developer and the creator of CARET, a core R package that streamlines the process for creating predictive models, will guide attendees on hands-on execution with R, covering:

    • A working knowledge of the R system
    • The strengths and limitations of the R language
    • Preparing data with R, including splitting, resampling and variable creation
    • Developing predictive models with R, including decision trees, support vector machines and ensemble methods
    • Visualization: Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), and tools that persuade
    • Evaluating predictive models, including viewing lift curves, variable importance and avoiding overfitting

    Hardware: Bring Your Own Laptop
    Each workshop participant is required to bring their own laptop running Windows or OS X. The software used during this training program, R, is free and readily available for download.

    Attendees receive an electronic copy of the course materials and related R code at the conclusion of the workshop.


    Schedule

    • Workshop starts at 9:00am
    • Morning Coffee Break at 10:30am – 11:00am
    • Lunch provided at 12:30 – 1:15pm
    • Afternoon Coffee Break at 2:30pm – 3:00pm
    • End of the Workshop: 4:30pm

    Instructor

    Max Kuhn, Director, Nonclinical Statistics, Pfizer

    Max Kuhn is a Director of Nonclinical Statistics at Pfizer Global R&D in Connecticut. He has been apply models in the pharmaceutical industries for over 15 years.

    He is a leading R developer and the author of several R packages including the CARET package that provides a simple and consistent interface to over 100 predictive models available in R.

    Mr. Kuhn has taught courses on modeling within Pfizer and externally, including a class for the India Ministry of Information Technology.

     

    http://www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/sanfrancisco/2011/r_for_predictive_modeling.php

     

    How to Analyze Wikileaks Data – R SPARQL

    Logo for R
    Image via Wikipedia

    Drew Conway- one of the very very few Project R voices I used to respect until recently. declared on his blog http://www.drewconway.com/zia/

    Why I Will Not Analyze The New WikiLeaks Data

    and followed it up with how HE analyzed the post announcing the non-analysis.

    “If you have not visited the site in a week or so you will have missed my previous post on analyzing WikiLeaks data, which from the traffic and 35 Comments and 255 Reactions was at least somewhat controversial. Given this rare spotlight I thought it would be fun to use the infochimps API to map out the geo-location of everyone that visited the blog post over the last few days. Unfortunately, after nearly two years with the same web hosting service, only today did I realize that I was not capturing daily log files for my domain”

    Anyways – non American users of R Project can analyze the Wikileaks data using the R SPARQL package I would advise American friends not to use this approach or attempt to analyze any data because technically the data is still classified and it’s possession is illegal (which is the reason Federal employees and organizations receiving federal funds have advised not to use this or any WikiLeaks dataset)

    https://code.google.com/p/r-sparql/

    Overview

    R is a programming language designed for statistics.

    R Sparql allows you to run SPARQL Queries inside R and store it as a R data frame.

    The main objective is to allow the integration of Ontologies with Statistics.

    It requires Java and rJava installed.

    Example (in R console):

    > library(sparql)> data <- query("SPARQL query>","RDF file or remote SPARQL Endpoint")

    and the data in a remote SPARQL  http://www.ckan.net/package/cablegate

    SPARQL is an easy language to pick  up, but dammit I am not supposed to blog on my vacations.

    http://code.google.com/p/r-sparql/wiki/GettingStarted

    Getting Started

    1. Installation

    1.1 Make sure Java is installed and is the default JVM:

    $ sudo apt-get install sun-java6-bin sun-java6-jre sun-java6-jdk$ sudo update-java-alternatives -s java-6-sun

    1.2 Configure R to use the correct version of Java

    $ sudo R CMD javareconf

    1.3 Install the rJava library

    $ R> install.packages("rJava")> q()

    1.4 Download and install the sparql library

    Download: http://code.google.com/p/r-sparql/downloads/list

    $ R CMD INSTALL sparql-0.1-X.tar.gz

    2. Executing a SPARQL query

    2.1 Start R

    #Load the librarylibrary(sparql)#Run the queryresult <- query("SELECT ... ", "http://...")#Print the resultprint(result)

    3. Examples

    3.1 The Query can be a string or a local file:

    query("SELECT ?date ?number ?season WHERE {  ... }", "local-file.rdf")
    query("my-query.rq", "local-file.rdf")

    The package will detect if my-query.rq exists and will load it from the file.

    3.3 The uri can be a file or an url (for remote queries):

    query("SELECT ... ","local-file.db")
    query("SELECT ... ","http://dbpedia.org/sparql")

    3.4 Get some examples here: http://code.google.com/p/r-sparql/downloads/list

    SPARQL Tutorial-

    http://openjena.org/ARQ/Tutorial/index.html

    Also read-

    http://webr3.org/blog/linked-data/virtuoso-6-sparqlgeo-and-linked-data/

    and from the favorite blog of Project R- Also known as NY Times

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/sorting-through-the-government-data-explosion/?twt=nytimesbits

    In May 2009, the Obama administration started putting raw 
    government data on the Web. 
    It started with 47 data sets. Today, there are more than
     270,000 government data sets, spanning every imaginable 
    category from public health to foreign aid.
    

    SAS Lawsuit against WPS- Application Dismissed

    I saw Phil Rack http://twitter.com/#!/PhilRack (whom I have interviewed before at https://decisionstats.com/2009/02/03/interview-phil-rack/ ) and whom I dont talk to since Obama won the election-

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    well Phil -creator of Bridge to R- first SAS language to R language interface- mentioned this judgment and link.

     

    Probably Phil should revise the documentation of Bridge to R- lest he is sued himself!!!

    Conclusion
    It was for these reasons that I decided to dismiss SAS’s application.

    From-

    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/3012.html

     

    Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3012 (Ch)
    Case No: HC09C03293

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CHANCERY DIVISION
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
    22 November 2010

    B e f o r e :

    THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
    ____________________
    Between:
    SAS INSTITUTE INC. Claimant
    – and –

    WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED Defendant

    ____________________

    Michael Hicks (instructed by Bristows) for the Claimant
    Martin Howe QC and Isabel Jamal (instructed by Speechly Bircham LLP) for the Defendant
    Hearing date: 18 November 2010
    ____________________

    HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
    ____________________

    Crown Copyright ©

    MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD :

    Introduction
    By order dated 28 July 2010 I referred certain questions concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, which was recently codified as European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009, and European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The background to the reference is set out in full in my judgment dated 23 July 2010 [2010] EWHC 1829 (Ch). The reference is presently pending before the Court of Justice as Case C-406/10. By an application notice issued on 11 October 2010 SAS applied for the wording of the questions to be amended in a number of respects. I heard that application on 18 November 2010 and refused it for reasons to be given later. This judgment contains those reasons.

    The questions and the proposed amendments
    I set out below the questions referred with the amendments proposed by SAS shown by strikethrough and underlining:

    “A. On the interpretation of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs and of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 (codified version):
    1. Where a computer program (‘the First Program’) is protected by copyright as a literary work, is Article 1(2) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for a competitor of the rightholder without access to the source code of the First Program, either directly or via a process such as decompilation of the object code, to create another program (‘the Second Program’) which replicates by copying the functions of the First Program?
    2. Is the answer to question 1 affected by any of the following factors:
    (a) the nature and/or extent of the functionality of the First Program;
    (b) the nature and/or extent of the skill, judgment and labour which has been expended by the author of the First Program in devising and/or selecting the functionality of the First Program;
    (c) the level of detail to which the functionality of the First Program has been reproduced in the Second Program;
    (d) if, the Second Program includes the following matters as a result of copying directly or indirectly from the First Program:
    (i) the selection of statistical operations which have been implemented in the First Program;
    (ii) the selection of mathematical formulae defining the statistical operations which the First Program carries out;
    (iii) the particular commands or combinations of commands by which those statistical operations may be invoked;
    (iv) the options which the author of the First Program has provided in respect of various commands;
    (v) the keywords and syntax recognised by the First Program;
    (vi) the defaults which the author of the First Program has chosen to implement in the event that a particular command or option is not specified by the user;
    (vii) the number of iterations which the First Program will perform in certain circumstances;
    (e)(d) if the source code for the Second Program reproduces by copying aspects of the source code of the First Program to an extent which goes beyond that which was strictly necessary in order to produce the same functionality as the First Program?
    3. Where the First Program interprets and executes application programs written by users of the First Program in a programming language devised by the author of the First Program which comprises keywords devised or selected by the author of the First Program and a syntax devised by the author of the First Program, is Article 1(2) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for the Second Program to be written so as to interpret and execute such application programs using the same keywords and the same syntax?
    4. Where the First Program reads from and writes to data files in a particular format devised by the author of the First Program, is Article 1(2) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for the Second Program to be written so as to read from and write to data files in the same format?
    5. Does it make any difference to the answer to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 if the author of the Second Program created the Second Program without access to the source code of the First Program, either directly or via decompilation of the object code by:
    (a) observing, studying and testing the functioning of the First Program; or
    (b) reading a manual created and published by the author of the First Program which describes the functions of the First Program (“the Manual”) and by implementing in the Second Program the functions described in the Manual; or
    (c) both (a) and (b)?
    6. Where a person has the right to use a copy of the First Program under a licence, is Article 5(3) to be interpreteding as meaning that the licensee is entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to perform acts of loading, running and storing the program in order to observe, test or study the functioning of the First Program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, if the licence permits the licensee to perform acts of loading, running and storing the First Program when using it for the particular purpose permitted by the licence, but the acts done in order to observe, study or test the First Program extend outside the scope of the purpose permitted by the licence and are therefore acts for which the licensee has no right to use the copy of the First Program under the licence?
    7. Is Article 5(3) to be interpreted as meaning that acts of observing, testing or studying of the functioning of the First Program are to be regarded as being done in order to determine the ideas or principles which underlie any element of the First Program where they are done:
    (a) to ascertain the way in which the First Program functions, in particular details which are not described in the Manual, for the purpose of writing the Second Program in the manner referred to in question 1 above;
    (b) to ascertain how the First Program interprets and executes statements written in the programming language which it interprets and executes (see question 3 above);
    (c) to ascertain the formats of data files which are written to or read by the First Program (see question 4 above);
    (d) to compare the performance of the Second Program with the First Program for the purpose of investigating reasons why their performances differ and to improve the performance of the Second Program;
    (e) to conduct parallel tests of the First Program and the Second Program in order to compare their outputs in the course of developing the Second Program, in particular by running the same test scripts through both the First Program and the Second Program;
    (f) to ascertain the output of the log file generated by the First Program in order to produce a log file which is identical or similar in appearance;
    (g) to cause the First Program to output data (in fact, data correlating zip codes to States of the USA) for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it corresponds with official databases of such data, and if it does not so correspond, to program the Second Program so that it will respond in the same way as the First Program to the same input data.
    B. On the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society:
    8. Where the Manual is protected by copyright as a literary work, is Article 2(a) to be interpreted as meaning that it is an infringement of the copyright in the Manual for the author of the Second Program to reproduce or substantially reproduce in the Second Program any or all of the following matters described in the Manual:
    (a) the selection of statistical operations which have been described in the Manual as being implemented in the First Program;
    (b) the mathematical formulae used in the Manual to describe those statistical operations;
    (c) the particular commands or combinations of commands by which those statistical operations may be invoked;
    (d) the options which the author of the First Program has provided in respect of various commands;
    (e) the keywords and syntax recognised by the First Program;
    (f) the defaults which the author of the First Program has chosen to implement in the event that a particular command or option is not specified by the user;
    (g) the number of iterations which the First Program will perform in certain circumstances?
    9. Is Article 2(a) to be interpreted as meaning that it is an infringement of the copyright in the Manual for the author of the Second Program to reproduce or substantially reproduce in a manual describing the Second Program the keywords and syntax recognised by the First Program?”

    Jurisdiction
    It was common ground between counsel that, although there is no direct authority on the point, it appears that the Court of Justice would accept an amendment to questions which had previously been referred by the referring court. The Court of Justice has stated that “national courts have the widest discretion in referring matters”: see Case 166/73 Rheinmühlen Düsseldorf v Einfuhr-und Vorratstelle für Getreide under Futtermittel [1974] ECR 33 at [4]. If an appeal court substitutes questions for those referred by a lower court, the substituted questions will be answered: Case 65/77 Razanatsimba [1977] ECR 2229. Sometimes the Court of Justice itself invites the referring court to clarify its questions, as occurred in Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc (No 2) [2010] EWHC 925 (Ch). In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any reason to think that, if the referring court itself had good reason to amend its questions, the Court of Justice would disregard the amendment.

    Counsel for WPL submitted, however, that, as a matter of domestic procedural law, this Court had no jurisdiction to vary an order for reference once sealed unless either there had been a material change of circumstances since the order (as in Interflora) or it had subsequently emerged that the Court had made the order on a false basis. He submitted that neither of those conditions was satisfied here. In those circumstances, the only remedy of a litigant in the position of SAS was to seek to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

    As counsel for WPL pointed out, CPR rule 3.1(7) confers on courts what appears to be a general power to vary or revoke their own orders. The proper exercise of that power was considered by the Court of Appeal in Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20, [2006] 1 WLR 1945 and Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 444, [2010] 1 WLR 487.

    In Collier Dyson LJ (as he then was) giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal said:

    “39. We now turn to the third argument. CPR 3.1(7) gives a very general power to vary or revoke an order. Consideration was given to the circumstances in which that power might be used by Patten J in Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Limited v Christen Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch). He said at paragraph 7:
    ‘The Deputy Judge exercised a discretion under CPR Part 13.3. It is not open to me as a judge exercising a parallel jurisdiction in the same division of the High Court to entertain what would in effect be an appeal from that order. If the Defendant wished to challenge whether the order made by Mr Berry was disproportionate and wrong in principle, then he should have applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I have been given no real reasons why this was not done. That course remains open to him even today, although he will have to persuade the Court of Appeal of the reasons why he should have what, on any view, is a very considerable extension of time. It seems to me that the only power available to me on this application is that contained in CPR Part 3.1(7), which enables the Court to vary or revoke an order. This is not confined to purely procedural orders and there is no real guidance in the White Book as to the possible limits of the jurisdiction. Although this is not intended to be an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which the power under CPR Part 3.1(7) is exercisable, it seems to me that, for the High Court to revisit one of its earlier orders, the Applicant must either show some material change of circumstances or that the judge who made the earlier order was misled in some way, whether innocently or otherwise, as to the correct factual position before him. The latter type of case would include, for example, a case of material non-disclosure on an application for an injunction. If all that is sought is a reconsideration of the order on the basis of the same material, then that can only be done, in my judgment, in the context of an appeal. Similarly it is not, I think, open to a party to the earlier application to seek in effect to re-argue that application by relying on submissions and evidence which were available to him at the time of the earlier hearing, but which, for whatever reason, he or his legal representatives chose not to employ. It is therefore clear that I am not entitled to entertain this application on the basis of the Defendant’s first main submission, that Mr Berry’s order was in any event disproportionate and wrong in principle, although I am bound to say that I have some reservations as to whether he was right to impose a condition of this kind without in terms enquiring whether the Defendant had any realistic prospects of being able to comply with the condition.’
    We endorse that approach. We agree that the power given by CPR 3.1(7) cannot be used simply as an equivalent to an appeal against an order with which the applicant is dissatisfied. The circumstances outlined by Patten J are the only ones in which the power to revoke or vary an order already made should be exercised under 3.1(7).”
    In Roult Hughes LJ, with whom Smith and Carnwath LJJ agreed, said at [15]:

    “There is scant authority upon Rule 3.1(7) but such as exists is unanimous in holding that it cannot constitute a power in a judge to hear an appeal from himself in respect of a final order. Neuberger J said as much in Customs & Excise v Anchor Foods (No 3) [1999] EWHC 834 (Ch). So did Patten J in Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch). His general approach was approved by this court, in the context of case management decisions, in Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20. I agree that in its terms the rule is not expressly confined to procedural orders. Like Patten J in Ager-Hanssen I would not attempt any exhaustive classification of the circumstances in which it may be proper to invoke it. I am however in no doubt that CPR 3.1(7) cannot bear the weight which Mr Grime’s argument seeks to place upon it. If it could, it would come close to permitting any party to ask any judge to review his own decision and, in effect, to hear an appeal from himself, on the basis of some subsequent event. It would certainly permit any party to ask the judge to review his own decision when it is not suggested that he made any error. It may well be that, in the context of essentially case management decisions, the grounds for invoking the rule will generally fall into one or other of the two categories of (i) erroneous information at the time of the original order or (ii) subsequent event destroying the basis on which it was made. The exigencies of case management may well call for a variation in planning from time to time in the light of developments. There may possibly be examples of non-procedural but continuing orders which may call for revocation or variation as they continue – an interlocutory injunction may be one. But it does not follow that wherever one or other of the two assertions mentioned (erroneous information and subsequent event) can be made, then any party can return to the trial judge and ask him to re-open any decision…..”
    In the present case there has been no material change of circumstances since I made the Order dated 28 July 2010. Nor did counsel for SAS suggest that I had made the Order upon a false basis. Counsel for SAS did submit, however, that the Court of Appeal had left open the possibility that it might be proper to exercise the power conferred by rule 3.1(7) even if there had no been material change of circumstances and it was not suggested that the order in question had been made on a false basis. Furthermore, he relied upon paragraph 1.1 of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 68, which provides that “responsibility for settling the terms of the reference lies with the English court and not with the parties”. He suggested that this meant that orders for references were not subject to the usual constraints on orders made purely inter partes.

    In my judgment PD68 paragraph 1.1 does not justify exercising the power conferred by rule 3.1(7) in circumstances falling outside those identified in Collier and Roult. I am therefore very doubtful that it would be a proper exercise of the power conferred on me by CPR r. 3.1(7) to vary the Order dated 28 July 2010 in the present circumstances. I prefer, however, not to rest my decision on that ground.

    Discretion
    Counsel for WPL also submitted that, even if this Court had jurisdiction to amend the questions, I should exercise my discretion by refusing to do so for two reasons. First, because the application was made too late. Secondly, because there was no sufficient justification for the amendments anyway. I shall consider these points separately.

    Delay
    The relevant dates are as follows. The judgment was handed down on 23 July 2010, a draft having been made available to the parties a few days before that. There was a hearing to consider the form of the order, and in particular the wording of the questions to be referred, on 28 July 2010. Prior to that hearing both parties submitted drafts of the questions, and the respective drafts were discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing I settled the Order, and in particular the questions. The Order was sealed on 2 August 2010. The sealed Order was received by the parties between 3 and 5 August 2010. At around the same time the Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division transmitted the Order to the Court of Justice. On 15 September 2010 the Registry of the Court of Justice notified the parties, Member States and EU institutions of the reference. On 1 October 2010 the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office advertised the reference on its website and invited comments by interested parties by 7 October 2010. The latest date on which written observations on the questions referred may be filed at the Court of Justice is 8 December 2010 (two months from the date of the notification plus 10 days extension on account of distance where applicable). This period is not extendable in any circumstances.

    As noted above, the application was not issued until 11 October 2010. No justification has been provided by SAS for the delay in making the application. The only explanation offered by counsel for SAS was that the idea of proposing the amendments had only occurred to those representing SAS when starting work on SAS’s written observations.

    Furthermore, the application notice requested that the matter be dealt with without a hearing. In my view that was not appropriate: the application was plainly one which was likely to require at least a short hearing. Furthermore, the practical consequence of proceeding in that way was to delay the hearing of the application. The paper application was put before me on 22 October 2010. On the same day I directed that the matter be listed for hearing. In the result it was not listed for hearing until 18 November 2010. If SAS had applied for the matter to be heard urgently, I am sure that it could have been dealt with sooner.

    As counsel for WPL submitted, it is likely that the parties, Member States and institutions who intend to file written observations are now at an advanced stage of preparing those observations. Indeed, it is likely that preparations would have been well advanced even on 11 October 2010. To amend the questions at this stage in the manner proposed by SAS would effectively require the Court of Justice to re-start the written procedure all over again. The amended questions would have to be translated into all the EU official languages; the parties, Member States and EU institutions would have to be notified of the amended questions; and the time for submitting written observations would have to be re-set. This would have two consequences. First, a certain amount of time, effort and money on the part of those preparing written observations would be wasted. Secondly, the progress of the case would be delayed. Those are consequences that could have been avoided if SAS had moved promptly after receiving the sealed Order.

    In these circumstances, it would not in my judgment be proper to exercise any discretion I may have in favour of amending the questions.

    No sufficient justification
    Counsel for WPL submitted that in any event SAS’s proposed amendments were not necessary in order to enable the Court of Justice to provide guidance on the issues in this case, and therefore there was no sufficient justification for making the amendments.

    Before addressing that submission directly, I think it is worth commenting more generally on the formulation of questions. As is common ground, and reflected in paragraph 1.1 of PD68, it is well established that the questions posed on a reference under Article 267 are the referring court’s questions, not the parties’. The purpose of the procedure is for the Court of Justice to provide the referring court with the guidance it needs in order to deal with the issues before it. It follows that it is for the referring court to decide how to formulate the questions.

    In my view it is usually helpful for the court to have the benefit of the parties’ comments on the wording of the proposed questions, as envisaged in paragraph 1.1 of PD68. There are two main reasons for this. The first is to try to ensure that the questions are sufficiently comprehensive to enable all the issues arising to be addressed by the Court of Justice, and thus avoid the need for a further reference at a later stage of the proceedings, as occurred in the Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward litigation. In that case Laddie J referred questions to the Court of Justice, which were answered in Case C-143/00 [2002] ECR I-3759. The Court of Appeal subsequently concluded, with regret, that the answers to those questions did not suffice to enable it to deal with the case, and referred further questions to the Court of Justice: [2004] EWCA Civ 575, [2004] ETMR 65. Those questions were answered in Case C-348/04 [2007] ECR I-3391. The second main reason is to try to ensure that the questions are clear and free from avoidable ambiguity or obscurity.

    In my experience it is not uncommon for parties addressing the court on the formulation of the questions to attempt to ensure that the questions are worded in a leading manner, that is to say, in a way which suggests the desired answer. In my view that is neither proper nor profitable. It is not proper because the questions should so far as possible be impartially worded. It is not profitable because experience shows that the Court of Justice is usually not concerned with the precise wording of the questions referred, but with their legal substance. Thus the Court of Justice frequently reformulates the question in giving its answer.

    As counsel for WPL pointed out, and as I have already mentioned, in the present case the parties provided me with draft questions which were discussed at a hearing. In settling the questions I took into account the parties’ drafts and their comments on each other’s drafts, but the final wording is, for better or worse, my own.

    As counsel for WPL submitted, at least to some extent SAS’s proposed amendments to the questions appear designed to bring the wording closer to that originally proposed by SAS. This is particularly true of the proposed amendment to question 1. In my judgment it would not be a proper exercise of any discretion that I may have to permit such an amendment, both because it appears to be an attempt by SAS to have the question worded in a manner which it believes favours its case and because its proper remedy if it objected to my not adopting the wording it proposed was to seek to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that SAS proposes to move some of the words excised from question 1 to question 5.

    In any event, I am not satisfied that any of the amendments are necessary either to enable the parties to present their respective arguments to the Court of Justice or to enable the Court to give guidance on any of the issues arising in this case. On the contrary, I consider that the existing questions are sufficient for these purposes. By way of illustration, I will take the biggest single amendment, which is the proposed insertion of new paragraph (d) in question 2. In my view, the matters referred to in paragraph (d) are matters that are encompassed within paragraphs (b) and/or (c); or at least can be addressed by the parties, and hence the Court of Justice, in the context provided by paragraphs (b) and/or (c). When I put this to counsel for SAS during the course of argument, he accepted it.

    Other amendments counsel for SAS himself presented as merely being minor matters of clarification. In my view none of them amount to the elimination of what would otherwise be ambiguities or obscurities in the questions.

    It is fair to say that SAS have identified a small typographical error in question 2 (“interpreting” should read “interpreted”), but in my view this is an obvious error which will not cause any difficulty in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

    Conclusion
    It was for these reasons that I decided to dismiss SAS’s application

    John Sall sets JMP 9 free to tango with R

     

    Diagnostic graphs produced by plot.lm() functi...
    Image via Wikipedia

     

    John Sall, founder SAS AND JMP , has released the latest blockbuster edition of flagship of JMP 9 (JMP Stands for John’s Macintosh Program).

    To kill all birds with one software, it is integrated with R and SAS, and the brochure frankly lists all the qualities. Why am I excited for JMP 9 integration with R and with SAS- well it integrates bigger datasets manipulation (thanks to SAS) with R’s superb library of statistical packages and a great statistical GUI (JMP). This makes JMP the latest software apart from SAS/IML, Rapid Miner,Knime, Oracle Data Miner to showcase it’s R integration (without getting into the GPL compliance need for showing source code– it does not ship R- and advises you to just freely download R). I am sure Peter Dalgaard, and Frankie Harell are all overjoyed that R Base and Hmisc packages would be used by fellow statisticians  and students for JMP- which after all is made in the neighborhood state of North Carolina.

    Best of all a JMP 30 day trial is free- so no money lost if you download JMP 9 (and no they dont ask for your credit card number, or do they- but they do have a huuuuuuge form to register before you download. Still JMP 9 the software itself is more thoughtfully designed than the email-prospect-leads-form and the extra functionality in the free 30 day trial is worth it.

    Also see “New Features  in JMP 9  http://www.jmp.com/software/jmp9/pdf/new_features.pdf

    which has this regarding R.

    Working with R

    R is a programming language and software environment for statistical computing and graphics. JMP now  supports a set of JSL functions to access R. The JSL functions provide the following options:

    • open and close a connection between JMP and R

    • exchange data between JMP and R

    •submit R code for execution

    •display graphics produced by R

    JMP and R each have their own sets of computational methods.

    R has some methods that JMP does not have. Using JSL functions, you can connect to R and use these R computational methods from within JMP.

    Textual output and error messages from R appear in the log window.R must be installed on the same computer as JMP.

    JMP is not distributed with a copy of R. You can download R from the Comprehensive R Archive Network Web site:http://cran.r-project.org

    Because JMP is supported as both a 32-bit and a 64-bit Windows application, you must install the corresponding 32-bit or 64-bit version of R.

    For details, see the Scripting Guide book.

    and the download trial page ( search optimized URL) –

    http://www.sas.com/apps/demosdownloads/jmptrial9_PROD__sysdep.jsp?packageID=000717&jmpflag=Y

    In related news (Richest man in North Carolina also ranks nationally(charlotte.news14.com) , Jim Goodnight is now just as rich as Mark Zuckenberg, creator of Facebook-

    though probably they are not creating a movie on Jim yet (imagine a movie titled “The Statistical Software” -not just the same dude feel as “The Social Network”)

    See John’s latest interview :

    The People Behind the Software: John Sall

    http://blogs.sas.com/jmp/index.php?/archives/352-The-People-Behind-the-Software-John-Sall.html

    Interview John Sall Founder JMP/SAS Institute

    https://decisionstats.com/2009/07/28/interview-john-sall-jmp/

    SAS Early Days

    https://decisionstats.com/2010/06/02/sas-early-days/

    %d bloggers like this: