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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ontent/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 tha
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
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
- 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 dow
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
