[Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind

uurtamo uurtamo at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 11:15:27 PST 2018


So published prior art isn't a defense? It's pretty widely publicized what
they did and how.

The problem I have with most tech patents is when they're overly broad.

s.

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018, 9:11 AM David Doshay via Computer-go <
computer-go at computer-go.org wrote:

> Another very important aspect of this discussion is that the US patent
> office changed to a ‘first to file’ method of prioritizing patent rights.
> This encouraged several patent trolls to try to undercut the true
> inventors. So, it is now more important to file for defensive purposes just
> to assure that deep pockets like Alpha do not have to pay royalties to
> others for their own inventions.
>
> Many years ago when I worked at NASA we were researching doing a patent
> filing for an image processing technique so that we could release it for
> public domain use. We found that someone successfully got a patent for
> using a bitmap to represent a black-and-white image! It may indeed have
> been possible and successful to argue in court that this is obvious to
> anyone in the industry and thus should not be granted a patent, but it
> would be costly and a bother to have to do so. Likewise for a deep pocket
> like Alpha who would be an obvious target for patent trolling if they did
> not get this technique labeled as public knowledge quickly enough.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> On Dec 9, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Jim O'Flaherty <jim.oflaherty.jr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181209/14eaf5c2/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list