[Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind

Jim O'Flaherty jim.oflaherty.jr at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 08:30:51 PST 2018


Tysvm for your excellent explanation.

And now you can see why I mentioned Google's being a member of OIN as a
critical distinction. It strongly increases the weight of 2. And implicitly
reduces the motivation for 1.


On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 8:51 PM 甲斐徳本 <tokumotokai at gmail.com wrote:

> Those are the points not well understood commonly.
>
> A patent application does two things.  1. Apply for an eventual granting
> of the patent, 2. Makes what's described in it a public knowledge as of the
> date of the filing.
> Patent may be functionally meaningless.  There may be no one to sue.  And
> these are huge issues for the point No.1.  However, a strategic patent
> applicants file patent applications for the point No.2 to deny any
> possibility of somebody else obtaining a patent.  (A public knowledge
> cannot be patented.)
>
> Many companies are trying to figure out how to patent DCNN based AI, and
> Google may be saying "Nope, as long as it is like the DeepMind method, you
> can't patent it."   Google is likely NOT saying "We are hoping to obtain
> the patent, and intend to enforce it."
>
> Despite many differences in patent law from a country to another, two
> basic purposes of patent are universal: 1. To protect the inventor, and 2.
> To promote the use of inventions by making the details a public knowledge.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:47 AM uurtamo <uurtamo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'm saying is that the patent is functionally meaningless. Who is
>> there to sue?
>>
>> Moreover, there is no enforceable patent on the broad class of algorithms
>> that could reproduce these results. No?
>>
>> s.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, 4:16 AM Jim O'Flaherty <jim.oflaherty.jr at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 <tokumotokai at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's insane about it?
>>>> To me, what Jim O'Flaherty stated is common sense in the field of
>>>> patents, and any patent attorney would attest to that.  If I may add, Jim's
>>>> last sentence should read "Google's patent application" instead of
>>>> "Google's patent".  The difference is huge, and this may be in the heart of
>>>> the issue, which is not well understood by the general public.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, thousands of patent applications are filed in the world
>>>> without any hope of the patent eventually being granted, to establish
>>>> "prior art" thereby protecting what's described in it from being patented
>>>> by somebody else.
>>>>
>>>> Or, am I responding to a troll?
>>>>
>>>> Tokumoto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM uurtamo <uurtamo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty <
>>>>> jim.oflaherty.jr at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, patents are a STRATEGIC mechanism as well as a legal
>>>>>> mechanism. As soon as a patent is publically filed (for example, as
>>>>>> utility, and following provisional), the text and claims in the patent
>>>>>> immediately become prior art globally as of the original filing date
>>>>>> REGARDLESS of whether the patent is eventually approved or rejected. IOW, a
>>>>>> patent filing is a mechanism to ensure no one else can make a similar claim
>>>>>> without risking this filing being used as a possible prior art refutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this only because it is a strategy option my company is using
>>>>>> in an entirely different unrelated domain. The patent filing is defensive
>>>>>> such that someone else cannot make a claim and take our inventions away
>>>>>> from us just because the coincidentally hit near our inventions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So considering Google's past and their participation in the OIN, it
>>>>>> is very likely Google's patent is ensuring the ground all around this area
>>>>>> is sufficiently salted to stop anyone from attempting to exploit nearby
>>>>>> patent claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim O'Flaherty
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:44 PM Erik van der Werf <
>>>>>> erikvanderwerf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:28 PM Rémi Coulom <remi.coulom at free.fr>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far it just looks like an application (and I don't think it will
>>>>>>> be be difficult to oppose, if you care about this)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>>>>>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>>>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>>>>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>>>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go at computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20181209/a487a6ba/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list