3 ms·

Wow, I wondered why you put a TM on Random Forests. I guess it is trademark of Salford Systems, which is kind of weird. Maybe we can just call them random fore

Wow, I wondered why you put a TM on Random Forests. I guess it is trademark of Salford Systems, which is kind of weird. Maybe we can just call them random forests and ignore that.

jph00 8y ago
I'm often guilty of this too - but we really should put the (tm) there. It's nice that they made code of the algorithm publicly available and all they ask is that we respect their trademark in return. I think that's more than fair. :) (I discussed this a few years with the co-inventor of random forests, Adele Cutler, and she confirmed that this is something that she wants to see happen.)
- marktangotango 8y ago
  Are algorithms patentable? Last I checked in US they were, copywritable?
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    Not the answer to your question, but in case it helps anyone: trademarks are unrelated to patents. You can use a random forest but you can not call them “random forest”. “Aleatory jungle” is fine, though.
    - sacado2 8y ago
      "stochastic treeset". Sounds way more scientific, which can be required to convince a pointy-hair boss. "Random" forest sounds... well, I can flip a coin too, how is that going to solve my problem? For the same reason, "naive" bayes classifier are very hard to sell, to the point I stopped naming them and now just tell "a very fast machine learning algorithm", unless specifically asked.
msla 8y ago
> Maybe we can just call them random forests and ignore that. Legally, yes, you can, as the use is not mandatory: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21521/is-it-mandatory-to-include-the-registered-trademark-symbol-next-to-the-name-of/61852 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21521/is-it-man... > Although owners of trademarked names may suggest otherwise, publishers are not obligated to denote the trademark status of a name when that name is mentioned in text. Authors representing trademark owners frequently feel obligated to use the trademark or registered-trademark symbol (™ or ®) after the first mention of their product names but often do not use these symbols consistently to indicate the trademark status of other names not owned by their particular sponsor or employer. The people who own the trademark may feel obligated to use those marks, but nobody else ever is. There's a lot of "folk law" (that is, urban legends repeated by the ignorant) surrounding this concept, so if you think I'm wrong, please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and research good cites to show that there's actual law saying I'm wrong. Thanks.

Wow, I wondered why you put a TM on Random Forests. I guess it is trademark of Salford Systems, which is kind of weird. Maybe we can just call them random forests and ignore that.

jph00 8y ago

I'm often guilty of this too - but we really should put the (tm) there. It's nice that they made code of the algorithm publicly available and all they ask is that we respect their trademark in return. I think that's more than fair. :) (I discussed this a few years with the co-inventor of random forests, Adele Cutler, and she confirmed that this is something that she wants to see happen.)

marktangotango 8y ago
Are algorithms patentable? Last I checked in US they were, copywritable?
- kgwgk 8y ago
  Not the answer to your question, but in case it helps anyone: trademarks are unrelated to patents. You can use a random forest but you can not call them “random forest”. “Aleatory jungle” is fine, though.
  - sacado2 8y ago
    "stochastic treeset". Sounds way more scientific, which can be required to convince a pointy-hair boss. "Random" forest sounds... well, I can flip a coin too, how is that going to solve my problem? For the same reason, "naive" bayes classifier are very hard to sell, to the point I stopped naming them and now just tell "a very fast machine learning algorithm", unless specifically asked.

msla 8y ago

> Maybe we can just call them random forests and ignore that. Legally, yes, you can, as the use is not mandatory: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21521/is-it-mandatory-to-include-the-registered-trademark-symbol-next-to-the-name-of/61852 https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21521/is-it-man... > Although owners of trademarked names may suggest otherwise, publishers are not obligated to denote the trademark status of a name when that name is mentioned in text. Authors representing trademark owners frequently feel obligated to use the trademark or registered-trademark symbol (™ or ®) after the first mention of their product names but often do not use these symbols consistently to indicate the trademark status of other names not owned by their particular sponsor or employer. The people who own the trademark may feel obligated to use those marks, but nobody else ever is. There's a lot of "folk law" (that is, urban legends repeated by the ignorant) surrounding this concept, so if you think I'm wrong, please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and research good cites to show that there's actual law saying I'm wrong. Thanks.