9 ms·
Google applying to patent deep neural network (LSTM) for machine translation
- spacemanmatt 10y agoHard to see how it's not another pure-software patent.
- transpy 10y agoThey include a function to identify and map source/target unknown ('rare') words.
- Cshelton 10y agoI'm not a patent attorney or anything, but...how could this ever be enforceable...?
- therobot24 10y agoi'm sure the cost for trying (bit of cash) is greatly outweighed by the benefits of successfully being awarded the patent
- amelius 10y agoWhat are the benefits if you can't enforce it?
- nickpsecurity 10y agoHave you been following patent suits in the U.S. at all? You bet they'll be able to enforce it on somebody if they get it. The results pay off the patent and then some.
- dudus 10y agoTo defend yourself against patent trolls
- rst 10y agoNope. If Google being sued by someone else with a similar business, having patents of their own might help with a countersuit -- Google would allege that PlaintiffX was infringing Google's patents in the course of its own business. But a pure patent troll doesn't operate any business at all (other than collecting license fees), so they can't infringe somebody else's patents in the course of doing the nothing that they do.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- exhilaration 10y agoAnd the cost savings of avoiding litigation if a patent troll patents it first.
- sp332 10y agoYou wait until sometime violates the patent, then threaten to sue them. If they don't settle or license, then you actually sue them. If the court decides in your favor you can get damages and they have to stop making the infringing thing. Same as any other patent really!
- PeterisP 10y agoWhy wouldn't this be enforceable? It's just as enforceable as any other software patents - we can (and should!) argue about legality of software patents as such, but if the patent is granted, then you simply take a look at any competing MT system, and if they seem to use this approach, you'll be able to sue them for patent violation.
- mooneater 10y agoIndependent claim #1 does not mention neural networks at all. So its an application to patent more broadly than the title suggests.
- transpy 10y agoNeural network(s) is mentioned 55 times in the claims.
- readams 10y agoThat is simply false. Independent claim #1 does mention neural networks.
- qqqqqqqqqqqq 10y ago?
- mooneater 10y agoAaannd.. I was incorrect, claim #1 does mention neural networks.
- osterbit2 10y ago"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (didn't dig too far into this but..) why y'all need to patent this then? Patents can be beneficial to facilitate constructive competition, but think humanity is best served by neural nets becoming the new electricity rather than the new Apple-esque walled-garden...
- wnevets 10y ago>why y'all need to patent this then? so someone else doesn't and trolls with it?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- kryptiskt 10y agoA defensive publication suffices to make it unpatentable.
- lrem 10y agoWhat are rules for such a publication? I guess that something published in IEEE shouldn't be patentable and have my doubts about publishing on a blog, self-hosted, in Romanian. Where is the line according to the US law?
- rhino369 10y agoThe problem with blogs is that 15 years later it's hard to prove what was really there and when. But having it published on IEEE is the gold-standard.
- lrem 10y agoChances are that before you get your thing published on IEEE, someone else will start and finish writing an application and maybe even get the patent granted...
- jkrause314 10y agoClickbait. This is a patent on a very particular form of translation model that handles rare words, i.e. this paper that all the authors are on: http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8206
- PeterisP 10y agoDoesn't this very paper invalidate this patent, since its publication precedes the filing, and makes the method permanently unpatentable ?
- elsewhen 10y agothere is a one year grace period after public disclosure to actually file for a patent: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html
- PeterisP 10y agoOkay, that would allow it - the gap is slightly (1 week) less than a year, and the paper is published by Google employees who presumably are in the patent; the publication would still disallow someone else from patenting it even within that one year.
- abcampbell 10y agoIf memory serves, Google did this with Word2Vec as well, which is a bit sketchy. If you open source something, there should be a reasonable expectation that it is contributed to the commons. Otherwise a lot of people will build off your stuff, which you can then turn around, file a patent, and claim infringement. Not a lawyer, but seems like a problem.
- cgy1 10y agoAlso the patent application claims priority to a provisional patent application filed October 24, 2014, which was in all likelihood filed in view of the paper being submitted on October 30, 2014.
- 10y ago
- mistermaster 10y agothey will have to pay royalties to Sepp Hochreiter, the inventor of LSTM (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6795963&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6795963 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=679596...)
- PeterisP 10y agoWhy? LSTM as such isn't patented, so the concept is free to use by anyone without any restrictions or royalties, no matter who invented it. Also, the concept of LSTM wouldn't be patentable directly even in the current liberal software patent interpretation, you might patent particular applications of LSTM (e.g. this patent) but not any and all arbitrary applications of LSTM.
- VonGuard 10y agoGoogle is patenting this so that if they get sued, they already have a patent. If they actually sue anyone over this FIRST, I'd be shocked. This has got to be a defensive patent, in case someone else was about to patent the same thing and run after them with a lawyer.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y agoOh, and I was wondering what exactly they use in Google Translate.
- tomwrenn 10y ago:(
- transpy 10y agoWhy is Google patenting this tech? It's cutting-edge machine translation. The rest of the industry is still talking about statistical machine translation. The sector is moving very fast. With the recent SyntaxNet release and neural machine translation, Google is approaching the dream: universal automatic translation, which, by the way, is an innovation goal of Obama's administration.
- astrodust 10y agoQuick, someone patent using artificial intelligence to generate patentable ideas!
- transpy 10y agoI can't affirm I know about patents, or why some company files a patent. I understand one or two things about translation technology though, and I'm trying to express why I think this is valuable for Google in the context of industrial translation.