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@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...@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 <tokumoto...@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 <uurt...@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...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 <tokumoto...@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 <uurt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You're insane. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty < >>>>>> jim.oflaherty...@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 < >>>>>>> erikvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:28 PM Rémi Coulom <remi.cou...@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@computer-go.org >>>>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>>>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org >>>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org >>>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org >>>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org >>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Computer-go mailing list >>> Computer-go@computer-go.org >>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
