Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
while working at Nokia we revieved what innovations were worth patenting and how to deal with those we did not see important enough. Sometime we paid a reseacher from acemia to write a paper and submit for some conference. There were other methods. But filing just for prior art is way too expensive. Petri ma 10. jouluk. 2018 klo 12.31 Erik van der Werf (erikvanderw...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: > Publishing a paper or making your work open source is fine for defensive > purposes. You just have to make sure you can prove the date. Filing a > patent application when you have no hope of getting it granted is silly > because there are cheaper (and IMO nicer) alternatives. Perhaps forcing > yourself to go through the patent application process helps to increase > confidence that you have freedom to operate (or find out that you don't), > but other than that, unless you (or anyone else) could expect to get the > patent granted it is a waste of time. > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 8:27 PM uurtamo wrote: > >> 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 >>> 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 >> 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 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 > >>> 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
Publishing a paper or making your work open source is fine for defensive purposes. You just have to make sure you can prove the date. Filing a patent application when you have no hope of getting it granted is silly because there are cheaper (and IMO nicer) alternatives. Perhaps forcing yourself to go through the patent application process helps to increase confidence that you have freedom to operate (or find out that you don't), but other than that, unless you (or anyone else) could expect to get the patent granted it is a waste of time. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 8:27 PM uurtamo wrote: > 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 >> 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 > >>> 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 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 >>> wrote: > Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 >> 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 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 > 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 >> 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 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 >> wrote: >>> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 >>> > 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 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 >>>
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 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 > 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 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 >>> wrote: Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 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 wrote: >> You're insane. >> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty >> 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 cl
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 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 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 > wrote: >> >>> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 >> 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 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 >>> 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 ___
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
Thank you for this clarification, s. On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 6:51 PM 甲斐徳本 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 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 > wrote: >> >>> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 >> 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 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> ___ >>> Compu
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 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 wrote: > >> Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 > >>> 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 wrote: >>> You're insane. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty >>> 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 >> 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/compute
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 >> 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 wrote: >> >>> You're insane. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty >> 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 > 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
Tysvm for the clarification, Tokumoto. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 8:02 PM 甲斐徳本 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 wrote: > >> You're insane. >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty > 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 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 wrote: > You're insane. > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty 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 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
You're insane. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 4:13 PM Jim O'Flaherty 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 > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:28 PM Rémi Coulom 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
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 wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:28 PM Rémi Coulom 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
More games in general. looks like more chess games than previously available(wasn't it previously just 100, now it is 210) and it looks like they addressed the flack they got from the chess community by moving the hash size from 1G to 32G for stockfish. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:12 PM Rémi Coulom wrote: > > Interesting, thanks. I had not found pseudocode.py. > > It is in that file: > http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/719481/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/aar6404_DataS1.zip > > The link is at the bottom of that page: > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/1140/tab-figures-data > > Rémi > > - Mail original - > De: "Dan Schmidt" > À: computer-go@computer-go.org > Envoyé: Jeudi 6 Décembre 2018 23:39:57 > Objet: Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind > > > > > I believe that the dependence of C(s) (formerly c_puct) on N(s) is new. > > > The file pseudocode.py in the supplementary download sets c_base to 19652 and > c_init to 1.25. > > > Dan > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM Rémi Coulom < remi.cou...@free.fr > wrote: > > > Hi, > > The new alphazero paper of DeepMind about chess and shogi has been published > in Science: > > https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/ > > pdf: > https://deepmind.com/documents/260/alphazero_preprint.pdf > > I tried to play "spot the difference" with their previous draft, and did not > notice any very important difference. They include shogi games, which might > be appreciated by the shogi players. It seems they still don't tell the value > of their exploration coefficient, unless I missed anything. > > Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented: > https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665 > > Rémi > ___ > 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:28 PM Rémi Coulom 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
What exactly is the innovation that is patented ? Using short look-ahead searches for tuning evaluation functions ( in this case a neural network ) is not exactly new. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:28 PM Rémi Coulom wrote: > Hi, > > The new alphazero paper of DeepMind about chess and shogi has been > published in Science: > > > https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/ > > pdf: > https://deepmind.com/documents/260/alphazero_preprint.pdf > > I tried to play "spot the difference" with their previous draft, and did > not notice any very important difference. They include shogi games, which > might be appreciated by the shogi players. It seems they still don't tell > the value of their exploration coefficient, unless I missed anything. > > Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented: > https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665 > > Rémi > ___ > 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
Interesting, thanks. I had not found pseudocode.py. It is in that file: http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/719481/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/aar6404_DataS1.zip The link is at the bottom of that page: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/1140/tab-figures-data Rémi - Mail original - De: "Dan Schmidt" À: computer-go@computer-go.org Envoyé: Jeudi 6 Décembre 2018 23:39:57 Objet: Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind I believe that the dependence of C(s) (formerly c_puct) on N(s) is new. The file pseudocode.py in the supplementary download sets c_base to 19652 and c_init to 1.25. Dan On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM Rémi Coulom < remi.cou...@free.fr > wrote: Hi, The new alphazero paper of DeepMind about chess and shogi has been published in Science: https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/ pdf: https://deepmind.com/documents/260/alphazero_preprint.pdf I tried to play "spot the difference" with their previous draft, and did not notice any very important difference. They include shogi games, which might be appreciated by the shogi players. It seems they still don't tell the value of their exploration coefficient, unless I missed anything. Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented: https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665 Rémi ___ 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
Re: [Computer-go] New paper by DeepMind
I believe that the dependence of C(s) (formerly c_puct) on N(s) is new. The file pseudocode.py in the supplementary download sets c_base to 19652 and c_init to 1.25. Dan On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM Rémi Coulom wrote: > Hi, > > The new alphazero paper of DeepMind about chess and shogi has been > published in Science: > > > https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/ > > pdf: > https://deepmind.com/documents/260/alphazero_preprint.pdf > > I tried to play "spot the difference" with their previous draft, and did > not notice any very important difference. They include shogi games, which > might be appreciated by the shogi players. It seems they still don't tell > the value of their exploration coefficient, unless I missed anything. > > Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented: > https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665 > > Rémi > ___ > 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] New paper by DeepMind
Hi, The new alphazero paper of DeepMind about chess and shogi has been published in Science: https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/ pdf: https://deepmind.com/documents/260/alphazero_preprint.pdf I tried to play "spot the difference" with their previous draft, and did not notice any very important difference. They include shogi games, which might be appreciated by the shogi players. It seems they still don't tell the value of their exploration coefficient, unless I missed anything. Also, the AlphaZero algorithm is patented: https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018215665 Rémi ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
