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
