The Top Statisticians in the World

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tukey

 

John Tukey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Tukey

John Wilder Tukey
Born June 16, 1915
New Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
Died July 26, 2000 (aged 85)
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Residence United States
Nationality American
Fields Mathematician
Institutions Bell Labs
Princeton University
Alma mater Brown University
Princeton University
Doctoral advisor Solomon Lefschetz
Doctoral students Frederick Mosteller
Kai Lai Chung
Known for FFT algorithm
Box plot
Coining the term ‘bit’
Notable awards Samuel S. Wilks Award (1965)
National Medal of Science (USA) in Mathematical, Statistical, and Computational Sciences (1973)
Shewhart Medal (1976)
IEEE Medal of Honor (1982)
Deming Medal (1982)
James Madison Medal (1984)
Foreign Member of the Royal Society(1991)

John Wilder Tukey ForMemRS[1] (June 16, 1915 – July 26, 2000) was an American statistician.

Contents

[hide]

[edit]Biography

Tukey was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts in 1915, and obtained a B.A. in 1936 and M.Sc.in 1937, in chemistry, from Brown University, before moving to Princeton University where he received a Ph.D. in mathematics.[2]

During World War II, Tukey worked at the Fire Control Research Office and collaborated withSamuel Wilks and William Cochran. After the war, he returned to Princeton, dividing his time between the university and AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Among many contributions to civil society, Tukey served on a committee of the American Statistical Association that produced a report challenging the conclusions of the Kinsey Report,Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

He was awarded the IEEE Medal of Honor in 1982 “For his contributions to the spectral analysis of random processes and the fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm.”

Tukey retired in 1985. He died in New Brunswick, New Jersey on July 26, 2000.

[edit]Scientific contributions

His statistical interests were many and varied. He is particularly remembered for his development with James Cooley of the Cooley–Tukey FFT algorithm. In 1970, he contributed significantly to what is today known as the jackknife estimation—also termed Quenouille-Tukey jackknife. He introduced the box plot in his 1977 book,”Exploratory Data Analysis“.

Tukey’s range test, the Tukey lambda distributionTukey’s test of additivity and Tukey’s lemma all bear his name. He is also the creator of several little-known methods such as the trimean andmedian-median line, an easier alternative to linear regression.

In 1974, he developed, with Jerome H. Friedman, the concept of the projection pursuit.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) was an English statistician,evolutionary biologisteugenicist and geneticist. Among other things, Fisher is well known for his contributions to statistics by creating Fisher’s exact test and Fisher’s equationAnders Hald called him “a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science”[1] while Richard Dawkins named him “the greatest biologist since Darwin“.[2]

 

contacts.xls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sealy_Gosset

William Sealy Gosset (June 13, 1876–October 16, 1937) is famous as a statistician, best known by his pen name Student and for his work on Student’s t-distribution.

Born in CanterburyEngland to Agnes Sealy Vidal and Colonel Frederic Gosset, Gosset attendedWinchester College before reading chemistry and mathematics at New College, Oxford. On graduating in 1899, he joined the Dublin brewery of Arthur Guinness & Son.

Guinness was a progressive agro-chemical business and Gosset would apply his statistical knowledge both in the brewery and on the farm—to the selection of the best yielding varieties ofbarley. Gosset acquired that knowledge by study, trial and error and by spending two terms in 1906–7 in the biometric laboratory of Karl Pearson. Gosset and Pearson had a good relationship and Pearson helped Gosset with the mathematics of his papers. Pearson helped with the 1908 papers but he had little appreciation of their importance. The papers addressed the brewer’s concern with small samples, while the biometrician typically had hundreds of observations and saw no urgency in developing small-sample methods.

Another researcher at Guinness had previously published a paper containing trade secrets of the Guinness brewery. To prevent further disclosure of confidential information, Guinness prohibited its employees from publishing any papers regardless of the contained information. However, after pleading with the brewery and explaining that his mathematical and philosophical conclusions were of no possible practical use to competing brewers, he was allowed to publish them, but under a pseudonym (“Student”), to avoid difficulties with the rest of the staff.[1] Thus his most famous achievement is now referred to as Student’s t-distribution, which might otherwise have been Gosset’s t-distribution.

RapidMiner launches extensions marketplace

For some time now, I had been hoping for a place where new package or algorithm developers get at least a fraction of the money that iPad or iPhone application developers get. Rapid Miner has taken the lead in establishing a marketplace for extensions. Is there going to be paid extensions as well- I hope so!!

This probably makes it the first “app” marketplace in open source and the second app marketplace in analytics after salesforce.com

It is hard work to think of new algols, and some of them can really be usefull.

Can we hope for #rstats marketplace where people downloading say ggplot3.0 atleast get a prompt to donate 99 cents per download to Hadley Wickham’s Amazon wishlist. http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/1Y65N3VFA613B

Do you think it is okay to pay 99 cents per iTunes song, but not pay a cent for open source software.

I dont know- but I am just a capitalist born in a country that was socialist for the first 13 years of my life. Congratulations once again to Rapid Miner for innovating and leading the way.

http://rapid-i.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Rapid-I-Marketplace-Launched.html/Itemid,172

RapidMinerMarketplaceExtensions 30 May 2011
Rapid-I Marketplace Launched by Simon Fischer

Over the years, many of you have been developing new RapidMiner Extensions dedicated to a broad set of topics. Whereas these extensions are easy to install in RapidMiner – just download and place them in the plugins folder – the hard part is to find them in the vastness that is the Internet. Extensions made by ourselves at Rapid-I, on the other hand,  are distributed by the update server making them searchable and installable directly inside RapidMiner.

We thought that this was a bit unfair, so we decieded to open up the update server to the public, and not only this, we even gave it a new look and name. The Rapid-I Marketplace is available in beta mode at http://rapidupdate.de:8180/ . You can use the Web interface to browse, comment, and rate the extensions, and you can use the update functionality in RapidMiner by going to the preferences and entering http://rapidupdate.de:8180/UpdateServer/ as the update server URL. (Once the beta test is complete, we will change the port back to 80 so we won’t have any firewall problems.)

As an Extension developer, just register with the Marketplace and drop me an email (fischer at rapid-i dot com) so I can give you permissions to upload your own extension. Upload is simple provided you use the standard RapidMiner Extension build process and will boost visibility of your extension.

Looking forward to see many new extensions there soon!

Disclaimer- Decisionstats is a partner of Rapid Miner. I have been liking the software for a long long time, and recently agreed to partner with them just like I did with KXEN some years back, and with Predictive AnalyticsConference, and Aster Data until last year.

I still think Rapid Miner is a very very good software,and a globally created software after SAP.

Here is the actual marketplace

http://rapidupdate.de:8180/UpdateServer/faces/index.xhtml

Welcome to the Rapid-I Marketplace Public Beta Test

The Rapid-I Marketplace will soon replace the RapidMiner update server. Using this marketplace, you can share your RapidMiner extensions and make them available for download by the community of RapidMiner users. Currently, we are beta testing this server. If you want to use this server in RapidMiner, you must go to the preferences and enter http://rapidupdate.de:8180/UpdateServer for the update url. After the beta test, we will change the port back to 80, which is currently occupied by the old update server. You can test the marketplace as a user (downloading extensions) and as an Extension developer. If you want to publish your extension here, please let us know via the contact form.

Hot Downloads
«« « 1 2 3 » »»
[Icon]The Image Processing Extension provides operators for handling image data. You can extract attributes describing colour and texture in the image, you can make several transformation of a image data which allows you to perform segmentation and detection of suspicious areas in image data.The extension provides many of image transformation and extraction operators ranging from Wavelet Decomposition, Hough Circle to Block Difference of Inverse probabilities.

[Icon]RapidMiner is unquestionably the world-leading open-source system for data mining. It is available as a stand-alone application for data analysis and as a data mining engine for the integration into own products. Thousands of applications of RapidMiner in more than 40 countries give their users a competitive edge.

  • Data IntegrationAnalytical ETLData Analysis, and Reporting in one single suite
  • Powerful but intuitive graphical user interface for the design of analysis processes
  • Repositories for process, data and meta data handling
  • Only solution with meta data transformation: forget trial and error and inspect results already during design time
  • Only solution which supports on-the-fly error recognition and quick fixes
  • Complete and flexible: Hundreds of data loading, data transformation, data modeling, and data visualization methods
[Icon]All modeling methods and attribute evaluation methods from the Weka machine learning library are available within RapidMiner. After installing this extension you will get access to about 100 additional modelling schemes including additional decision trees, rule learners and regression estimators.This extension combines two of the most widely used open source data mining solutions. By installing it, you can extend RapidMiner to everything what is possible with Weka while keeping the full analysis, preprocessing, and visualization power of RapidMiner.

[Icon]Finally, the two most widely used data analysis solutions – RapidMiner and R – are connected. Arbitrary R models and scripts can now be directly integrated into the RapidMiner analysis processes. The new R perspective offers the known R console together with the great plotting facilities of R. All variables and R scripts can be organized in the RapidMiner Repository.A directly included online help and multi-line editing makes the creation of R scripts much more comfortable.

Try JMP for free in steps 1-2-3

Test a 30 day free trial of JMP, the beautiful software with the ugliest website.

In case you have never used JMP, but know the difference between a mean and a mode- take a look.

Step 1 Fill long and badly designed outdated form (note the blue lightening graphics design and font)


Step 2 See uselessly long message, as the website does require registration but it has not done  any oAuth/SM easy registration even though they help sell software in the same campus on social media

Step 3 Wait for 352 mb TO DOWNLOAD without a bit torrent or mirror servers, or even a link for scheduling Download Accelerator-

Note internet connections can be lousy (globally not just in India) to categorize 352 mb of downloads as painful.


And after all the violence and double talk
There’s just a song in all the trouble and the strife

JMP is still the best easiest to use powerful Big Data software with extensions into R and SAS.

Using Views in R and comparing functions across multiple packages

Some RDF hacking relating to updating probabil...
Image via Wikipedia

R has almost 2923 available packages

This makes the task of searching among these packages and comparing functions for the same analytical task across different packages a bit tedious and prone to manual searching (of reading multiple Pdfs of help /vignette of packages) or sending an email to the R help list.

However using R Views is a slightly better way of managing all your analytical requirements for software rather than the large number of packages (see Graphics view below).

CRAN Task Views allow you to browse packages by topic and provide tools to automatically install all packages for special areas of interest. Currently, 28 views are available. http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/

Bayesian Bayesian Inference
ChemPhys Chemometrics and Computational Physics
ClinicalTrials Clinical Trial Design, Monitoring, and Analysis
Cluster Cluster Analysis & Finite Mixture Models
Distributions Probability Distributions
Econometrics Computational Econometrics
Environmetrics Analysis of Ecological and Environmental Data
ExperimentalDesign Design of Experiments (DoE) & Analysis of Experimental Data
Finance Empirical Finance
Genetics Statistical Genetics
Graphics Graphic Displays & Dynamic Graphics & Graphic Devices & Visualization
gR gRaphical Models in R
HighPerformanceComputing High-Performance and Parallel Computing with R
MachineLearning Machine Learning & Statistical Learning
MedicalImaging Medical Image Analysis
Multivariate Multivariate Statistics
NaturalLanguageProcessing Natural Language Processing
OfficialStatistics Official Statistics & Survey Methodology
Optimization Optimization and Mathematical Programming
Pharmacokinetics Analysis of Pharmacokinetic Data
Phylogenetics Phylogenetics, Especially Comparative Methods
Psychometrics Psychometric Models and Methods
ReproducibleResearch Reproducible Research
Robust Robust Statistical Methods
SocialSciences Statistics for the Social Sciences
Spatial Analysis of Spatial Data
Survival Survival Analysis
TimeSeries Time Series Analysis

To automatically install these views, the ctv package needs to be installed, e.g., via

install.packages("ctv")
library("ctv")
Created by Pretty R at inside-R.org


and then the views can be installed via install.views or update.views (which first assesses which of the packages are already installed and up-to-date), e.g.,

install.views("Econometrics")
 update.views("Econometrics")
 Created by Pretty R at inside-R.org

CRAN Task View: Graphic Displays & Dynamic Graphics & Graphic Devices & Visualization

Maintainer: Nicholas Lewin-Koh
Contact: nikko at hailmail.net
Version: 2009-10-28

R is rich with facilities for creating and developing interesting graphics. Base R contains functionality for many plot types including coplots, mosaic plots, biplots, and the list goes on. There are devices such as postscript, png, jpeg and pdf for outputting graphics as well as device drivers for all platforms running R. lattice and grid are supplied with R’s recommended packages and are included in every binary distribution. lattice is an R implementation of William Cleveland’s trellis graphics, while grid defines a much more flexible graphics environment than the base R graphics.

R’s base graphics are implemented in the same way as in the S3 system developed by Becker, Chambers, and Wilks. There is a static device, which is treated as a static canvas and objects are drawn on the device through R plotting commands. The device has a set of global parameters such as margins and layouts which can be manipulated by the user using par() commands. The R graphics engine does not maintain a user visible graphics list, and there is no system of double buffering, so objects cannot be easily edited without redrawing a whole plot. This situation may change in R 2.7.x, where developers are working on double buffering for R devices. Even so, the base R graphics can produce many plots with extremely fine graphics in many specialized instances.

One can quickly run into trouble with R’s base graphic system if one wants to design complex layouts where scaling is maintained properly on resizing, nested graphs are desired or more interactivity is needed. grid was designed by Paul Murrell to overcome some of these limitations and as a result packages like latticeggplot2vcd or hexbin (on Bioconductor ) use grid for the underlying primitives. When using plots designed with grid one needs to keep in mind that grid is based on a system of viewports and graphic objects. To add objects one needs to use grid commands, e.g., grid.polygon() rather than polygon(). Also grid maintains a stack of viewports from the device and one needs to make sure the desired viewport is at the top of the stack. There is a great deal of explanatory documentation included with grid as vignettes.

The graphics packages in R can be organized roughly into the following topics, which range from the more user oriented at the top to the more developer oriented at the bottom. The categories are not mutually exclusive but are for the convenience of presentation:

  • Plotting : Enhancements for specialized plots can be found in plotrix, for polar plotting, vcd for categorical data, hexbin (on Bioconductor ) for hexagon binning, gclus for ordering plots and gplots for some plotting enhancements. Some specialized graphs, like Chernoff faces are implemented in aplpack, which also has a nice implementation of Tukey’s bag plot. For 3D plots latticescatterplot3d and misc3d provide a selection of plots for different kinds of 3D plotting. scatterplot3d is based on R’s base graphics system, while misc3d is based on rgl. The package onion for visualizing quaternions and octonions is well suited to display 3D graphics based on derived meshes.
  • Graphic Applications : This area is not much different from the plotting section except that these packages have tools that may not for display, but can aid in creating effective displays. Also included are packages with more esoteric plotting methods. For specific subject areas, like maps, or clustering the excellent task views contributed by other dedicated useRs is an excellent place to start.
    • Effect ordering : The gclus package focuses on the ordering of graphs to accentuate cluster structure or natural ordering in the data. While not for graphics directly cba and seriation have functions for creating 1 dimensional orderings from higher dimensional criteria. For ordering an array of displays, biclust can be useful.
    • Large Data Sets : Large data sets can present very different challenges from moderate and small datasets. Aside from overplotting, rendering 1,000,000 points can tax even modern GPU’s. For univariate datalvplot produces letter value boxplots which alleviate some of the problems that standard boxplots exhibit for large data sets. For bivariate data ash can produce a bivariate smoothed histogram very quickly, and hexbin, on Bioconductor , can bin bivariate data onto a hexagonal lattice, the advantage being that the irregular lines and orientation of hexagons do not create linear artifacts. For multivariate data, hexbin can be used to create a scatterplot matrix, combined with lattice. An alternative is to use scagnostics to produce a scaterplot matrix of “data about the data”, and look for interesting combinations of variables.
    • Trees and Graphs ape and ade4 have functions for plotting phylogenetic trees, which can be used for plotting dendrograms from clustering procedures. While these packages produce decent graphics, they do not use sophisticated algorithms for node placement, so may not be useful for very large trees. igraph has the Tilford-Rheingold algorithm implementead and is useful for plotting larger trees. diagram as facilities for flow diagrams and simple graphs. For more sophisticated graphs Rgraphviz and igraph have functions for plotting and layout, especially useful for representing large networks.
  • Graphics Systems lattice is built on top of the grid graphics system and is an R implementation of William Cleveland’s trellis system for S-PLUS. lattice allows for building many types of plots with sophisticated layouts based on conditioning. ggplot2 is an R implementation of the system described in “A Grammar of Graphics” by Leland Wilkinson. Like latticeggplot (also built on top of grid) assists in trellis-like graphics, but allows for much more. Since it is built on the idea of a semantics for graphics there is much more emphasis on reshaping data, transformation, and assembling the elements of a plot.
  • Devices : Whereas grid is built on top of the R graphics engine, many in the R community have found the R graphics engine somewhat inflexible and have written separate device drivers that either emphasize interactivity or plotting in various graphics formats. R base supplies devices for PostScript, PDF, JPEG and other formats. Devices on CRAN include cairoDevice which is a device based libcairo, which can actually render to many device types. The cairo device is desgned to work with RGTK2, which is an interface to the Gimp Tool Kit, similar to pyGTK2. GDD provides device drivers for several bitmap formats, including GIF and BMP. RSvgDevice is an SVG device driver and interfaces well with with vector drawing programs, or R web development packages, such as Rpad. When SVG devices are for web display developers should be aware that internet explorer does not support SVG, but has their own standard. Trust Microsoft. rgl provides a device driver based on OpenGL, and is good for 3D and interactive development. Lastly, the Augsburg group supplies a set of packages that includes a Java-based device, JavaGD.
  • Colors : The package colorspace provides a set of functions for transforming between color spaces and mixcolor() for mixing colors within a color space. Based on the HCL colors provided in colorspacevcdprovides a set of functions for choosing color palettes suitable for coding categorical variables ( rainbow_hcl()) and numerical information ( sequential_hcl()diverge_hcl()). Similar types of palettes are provided in RColorBrewer and dichromat is focused on palettes for color-impaired viewers.
  • Interactive Graphics : There are several efforts to implement interactive graphics systems that interface well with R. In an interactive system the user can interactively query the graphics on the screen with the mouse, or a moveable brush to zoom, pan and query on the device as well as link with other views of the data. rggobi embeds the GGobi interactive graphics system within R, so that one can display a data frame or several in GGobi directly from R. The package has functions to support longitudinal data, and graphs using GGobi’s edge set functionality. The RoSuDA repository maintained and developed by the University of Augsburg group has two packages, iplots and iwidgets as well as their Java development environment including a Java device, JavaGD. Their interactive graphics tools contain functions for alpha blending, which produces darker shading around areas with more data. This is exceptionally useful for parallel coordinate plots where many lines can quickly obscure patterns. playwith has facilities for building interactive versions of R graphics using the cairoDevice and RGtk2. Lastly, the rgl package has mechanisms for interactive manipulation of plots, especially 3D rotations and surfaces.
  • Development : For development of specialized graphics packages in R, grid should probably be the first consideration for any new plot type. rgl has better tools for 3D graphics, since the device is interactive, though it can be slow. An alternative is to use Java and the Java device in the RoSuDA packages, though Java has its own drawbacks. For porting plotting code to grid, using the package gridBase presents a nice intermediate step to embed base graphics in grid graphics and vice versa.

Interview Anne Milley JMP

Here is an interview with Anne Milley, a notable thought leader in the world of analytics. Anne is now Senior Director, Analytical Strategy in Product Marketing for JMP , the leading data visualization software from the SAS Institute.

Ajay-What do you think are the top 5 unique selling points of JMP compared to other statistical software in its category?

Anne-

JMP combines incredible analytic depth and breadth with interactive data visualization, creating a unique environment optimized for discovery and data-driven innovation.

With an extensible framework using JSL (JMP Scripting Language), and integration with SAS, R, and Excel, JMP becomes your analytic hub.

JMP is accessible to all kinds of users. A novice analyst can dig into an interactive report delivered by a custom JMP application. An engineer looking at his own data can use built-in JMP capabilities to discover patterns, and a developer can write code to extend JMP for herself or others.

State-of-the-art DOE capabilities make it easy for anyone to design and analyze efficient experiments to determine which adjustments will yield the greatest gains in quality or process improvement – before costly changes are made.

Not to mention, JMP products are exceptionally well designed and easy to use. See for yourself and check out the free trial at www.jmp.com.

Download a free 30-day trial of JMP.

Ajay- What are the challenges and opportunities of expanding JMP’s market share? Do you see JMP expanding its conferences globally to engage global audiences?

Anne-

We realized solid global growth in 2010. The release of JMP Pro and JMP Clinical last year along with continuing enhancements to the rest of the JMP family of products (JMP and JMP Genomics) should position us well for another good year.

With the growing interest in analytics as a means to sustained value creation, we have the opportunity to help people along their analytic journey – to get started, take the next step, or adopt new paradigms speeding their time to value. The challenge is doing that as fast as we would like.

We are hiring internationally to offer even more events, training and academic programs globally.

Ajay- What are the current and proposed educational and global academic initiatives of JMP? How can we see more JMP in universities across the world (say India- China etc)?

Anne-

We view colleges and universities both as critical incubators of future JMP users and as places where attitudes about data analysis and statistics are formed. We believe that a positive experience in learning statistics makes a person more likely to eventually want and need a product like JMP.

For most students – and particularly for those in applied disciplines of business, engineering and the sciences – the ability to make a statistics course relevant to their primary area of study fosters a positive experience. Fortunately, there is a trend in statistical education toward a more applied, data-driven approach, and JMP provides a very natural environment for both students and researchers.

Its user-friendly navigation, emphasis on data visualization and easy access to the analytics behind the graphics make JMP a compelling alternative to some of our more traditional competitors.

We’ve seen strong growth in the education markets in the last few years, and JMP is now used in nearly half of the top 200 universities in the US.

Internationally, we are at an earlier stage of market development, but we are currently working with both JMP and SAS country offices and their local academic programs to promote JMP. For example, we are working with members of the JMP China office and faculty at several universities in China to support the use of JMP in the development of a master’s curriculum in Applied Statistics there, touched on in this AMSTAT News article.

Ajay- What future trends do you see for 2011 in this market (say top 5)?

Anne-

Growing complexity of data (text, image, audio…) drives the need for more and better visualization and analysis capabilities to make sense of it all.

More “chief analytics officers” are making better use of analytic talent – people are the most important ingredient for success!

JMP has been on the vanguard of 64-bit development, and users are now catching up with us as 64-bit machines become more common.

Users should demand easy-to-use, exploratory and predictive modeling tools as well as robust tools to experiment and learn to help them make the best decisions on an ongoing basis.

All these factors and more fuel the need for the integration of flexible, extensible tools with popular analytic platforms.

Ajay-You enjoy organic gardening as a hobby. How do you think hobbies and unwind time help people be better professionals?

Anne-

I am lucky to work with so many people who view their work as a hobby. They have other interests too, though, some of which are work-related (statistics is relevant everywhere!). Organic gardening helps me put things in perspective and be present in the moment. More than work defines who you are. You can be passionate about your work as well as passionate about other things. I think it’s important to spend some leisure time in ways that bring you joy and contribute to your overall wellbeing and outlook.

Btw, nice interviews over the past several months—I hadn’t kept up, but will check it out more often!

Biography–  Source- http://www.sas.com/knowledge-exchange/business-analytics/biographies.html

  • Anne Milley

    Anne Milley

    Anne Milley is Senior Director of Analytics Strategy at JMP Product Marketing at SAS. Her ties to SAS began with bank failure prediction at Federal Home Loan Bank Dallas and continued at 7-Eleven Inc. She has authored papers and served on committees for F2006, KDD, SIAM, A2010 and several years of SAS’ annual data mining conference. Milley is a contributing faculty member for the International Institute of Analytics. anne.milley@jmp.com

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

Open Source's worst enemy is itself not Microsoft/SAS/SAP/Oracle

The decision of quality open source makers to offer their software at bargain basement prices even to enterprise customers who are used to pay prices many times more-pricing is the reason open source software is taking a long time to command respect in enterprise software.

I hate to be the messenger who brings the bad news to my open source brethren-

but their worst nightmare is not the actions of their proprietary competitors like Oracle, SAP, SAS, Microsoft ( they hate each other even more than open source )

nor the collective marketing tactics which are textbook like (but referred as Fear Uncertainty Doubt by those outside that golden quartet)- it is their own communities and their own cheap pricing.

It is community action which prevents them from offering their software by ridiculously low bargain basement prices. James Dixon, head geek and founder at Pentaho has a point when he says traditional metrics like revenue need o be adjusted for this impact in his article at http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/comparing-open-source-and-proprietary-software-markets/

But James, why offer software to enterprise customers at one tenth the next competitor- one reason is open source companies more often than not compete more with their free community version software than with big proprietary packages.

Communities including academics are used to free- hey how about paying say 1$ for each download.

There are two million R users- if say even 50 % of them  paid 1 $ as a lifetime license fee- you could sponsor enough new packages than twenty years of Google Summer of Code does right now.

Secondly, this pricing can easily be adjusted by shifting the licensing to say free for businesses less than 2 people (even for the enhanced corporate software version not just the plain vanilla community software thus further increasing the spread of the plain vanilla versions)- for businesses from 10 to 20 people offer a six month trial rather than one month trial.

– but adjust the pricing to much more realistic levels compared to competing software. Make enterprise software pay a real value.

That’s the only way to earn respect. as well as a few dollars more.

As for SAS, it is time it started ridiculing Python now that it has accepted R.

Python is even MORE powerful than R in some use cases for stat computing

Dixon’s Pentaho and the Jaspersoft/ Revolution combo are nice _ I tested both Jasper and Pentaho thanks to these remarks this week 🙂  (see slides at http://www.jaspersoft.com/sites/default/files/downloads/events/Analytics%20-Jaspersoft-SEP2010.pdf or http://www.revolutionanalytics.com/news-events/free-webinars/2010/deploying-r/index.php )

Pentaho and Jasper do give good great graphics in BI (Graphical display in BI is not a SAS forte though probably I dont know how much they cross sell JMP to BI customers- probably too much JMP is another division syndrome there)