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
