6 ms·

"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

"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 ago
  A defensive publication suffices to make it unpatentable.
  - lrem 10y ago
    What 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        Chances 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...
    - nl 10y ago
      Any prior disclosure invalidates any patents.
    - zaroth 10y ago
      To be sure, you submit the provisional patent application, and never file the utility. It's only $260 to file. After 1 year the provisional dies and you have a permanent record of the prior art. In this case there is a provisional patent from 2014, and this application follows from that provisional.
      - monochromatic 10y ago
        > After 1 year the provisional dies and you have a permanent record of the prior art. It's a permanent record, but it's not published. This is not a great plan.
        zaroth 10y ago
        I've been reading more about this. Public disclosure vs. provisional. In the US you get a year after public disclosure to file even a provisional. But not so if you want non-US patents. So you are closing some doors but keeping others open with public disclosure. Also, you are starting a 1 year clock. A provisional is private; it does not count as public disclosure. A provisional is nothing more than a priority date, assuming what you have disclosed in the provisional itself is sufficient, and novel. You can even refile the same provisional every year as long as you believe the subject mater is still novel, but you get a new filing/priority date each time. As for preventing a 3rd party from patenting the subject matter, either one is sufficient. However, if you publically disclose, only then you also get protection from a 3rd party who builds on your work. So in that case public disclosure is better than the 'secret' provisional. Better yet, just timestamp the document in the blockchain.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Unfortunately, someone else can come along and patent a trivial, supposedly non-obvious "next step" invention, and the original inventor would have to pay to license the slightly improved version to remain competitive. With a patent on the main technology, they could probably negotiate a reciprocal deal at the very least.
mtgx 10y ago
I don't know if this is the reason, but I think Google started getting a lot more paranoid about hoarding patents when Apple and Microsoft started going after Android OEMs in the early years. Google didn't really have any "counter-offensive" patent strategy then, which is why it went on a patent buying spree back then, although most of the available ones also got bought by Apple and Microsoft through Rockstar and so on. So best case scenario, Google doesn't want to be caught with its pants down regarding patents. Worst case, it wants to "own" deep learning, so that nobody can really compete with them. Although I think that would be a little in conflict with their strategy to open source tensorflow. To really figure out on which side Google is now playing we'll have to see how they respond to future patent reforms, and whether they join Microsoft and IBM to once again kill those reforms, or support the reforms to abolish software patents or drastically reduce their damage.
- aab0 10y ago
  > Worst case, it wants to "own" deep learning, so that nobody can really compete with them. Although I think that would be a little in conflict with their strategy to open source tensorflow. Only a little. Releasing all the models and frameworks helps advance the field, helps with finding people to recruit, helps with integrating them into teams, and so on. This is why so many giants find it in their own self-interest to contribute to FLOSS these days. Competition-wise, as is often said, Google has all the data. If for every deep learning advance they make $1 and the competitors make $0.95, they win. Patents here are quite helpful: you may make a neat translation app using some new tricks, and then discover when you go to commercialize it that oops, Google's patented 'using neural nets for translation'. Then you either quit, get sued, get bought, or give them most of your profits.
jagtodeath 10y ago
I'd rather google patent them than some other sue-happy company who will abuse them. Who knows, maybe they will open source the patent.
- nivla 10y ago
  I rather no company patent them than any do-no-evil company. Besides why do you think they won't use/abuse it? The whole point of spending so much ridiculous amount of money on a patent is to get exclusive rights to be the only one to use it. Isn't competition better than stagnation by a single company?
  - kailuowang 10y ago
    so, how do you ensure no company patent them?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - woodman 10y ago
      Demonstrate prior art? There are a lot of ways to do that without releasing production code.
      - breatheoften 10y ago
        Given historical prescedent, is existence of prior art actually an effective way in practice to prevent the granting of a patent?
        woodman 10y ago
        Nope, but that doesn't matter - as enforcement is the concern, and there prior art shines. If the motive is purely defensive (and I don't include the menacing of a portfolio in that category), then it is the ideal move to make - as bad actors waste more energy filing poorly researched and easily refuted patents.
laxatives 10y ago
It is not enough to succeed; others must fail.
alangpierce 10y ago
I don't know what Google's reason is for this patent, but defensive patents are really common these days, and I think just about any big company has lawyers saying "patent everything you can, since you need a big patent portfolio for defensive purposes". Point is, just because Google is filing this patent doesn't mean they intend to stop others from using this approach. A link to a patent application isn't enough context to know.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  If Google intends to patent defensively, they should immediately pledge on this patent. One thing I find very unfortunate, is while Google claims they're only really intended to use their software patents defensively, they've pledged not to with only a tiny number of their patent library. One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    Maybe that's their backup plan if the internet run by ads continues its decline
    - Grazester 10y ago
      Continues its decline? I thought that decline what only in a certain metric or ad type
      - themartorana 10y ago
        Maybe HTML in-browser ads, but native, in-flow software ads and demand-based "rewarded" ads basically prop up the entire mobile software (especially gaming) market. There's only growth there, no slowing.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll Is there any big tech company for which this statement does not apply? Or do you hold Google to a higher standard?

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 ago
A defensive publication suffices to make it unpatentable.
- lrem 10y ago
  What 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Chances 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...
  - nl 10y ago
    Any prior disclosure invalidates any patents.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    To be sure, you submit the provisional patent application, and never file the utility. It's only $260 to file. After 1 year the provisional dies and you have a permanent record of the prior art. In this case there is a provisional patent from 2014, and this application follows from that provisional.
    - monochromatic 10y ago
      > After 1 year the provisional dies and you have a permanent record of the prior art. It's a permanent record, but it's not published. This is not a great plan.
      - zaroth 10y ago
        I've been reading more about this. Public disclosure vs. provisional. In the US you get a year after public disclosure to file even a provisional. But not so if you want non-US patents. So you are closing some doors but keeping others open with public disclosure. Also, you are starting a 1 year clock. A provisional is private; it does not count as public disclosure. A provisional is nothing more than a priority date, assuming what you have disclosed in the provisional itself is sufficient, and novel. You can even refile the same provisional every year as long as you believe the subject mater is still novel, but you get a new filing/priority date each time. As for preventing a 3rd party from patenting the subject matter, either one is sufficient. However, if you publically disclose, only then you also get protection from a 3rd party who builds on your work. So in that case public disclosure is better than the 'secret' provisional. Better yet, just timestamp the document in the blockchain.
- mcbits 10y ago
  Unfortunately, someone else can come along and patent a trivial, supposedly non-obvious "next step" invention, and the original inventor would have to pay to license the slightly improved version to remain competitive. With a patent on the main technology, they could probably negotiate a reciprocal deal at the very least.

mtgx 10y ago

I don't know if this is the reason, but I think Google started getting a lot more paranoid about hoarding patents when Apple and Microsoft started going after Android OEMs in the early years. Google didn't really have any "counter-offensive" patent strategy then, which is why it went on a patent buying spree back then, although most of the available ones also got bought by Apple and Microsoft through Rockstar and so on. So best case scenario, Google doesn't want to be caught with its pants down regarding patents. Worst case, it wants to "own" deep learning, so that nobody can really compete with them. Although I think that would be a little in conflict with their strategy to open source tensorflow. To really figure out on which side Google is now playing we'll have to see how they respond to future patent reforms, and whether they join Microsoft and IBM to once again kill those reforms, or support the reforms to abolish software patents or drastically reduce their damage.

aab0 10y ago
> Worst case, it wants to "own" deep learning, so that nobody can really compete with them. Although I think that would be a little in conflict with their strategy to open source tensorflow. Only a little. Releasing all the models and frameworks helps advance the field, helps with finding people to recruit, helps with integrating them into teams, and so on. This is why so many giants find it in their own self-interest to contribute to FLOSS these days. Competition-wise, as is often said, Google has all the data. If for every deep learning advance they make $1 and the competitors make $0.95, they win. Patents here are quite helpful: you may make a neat translation app using some new tricks, and then discover when you go to commercialize it that oops, Google's patented 'using neural nets for translation'. Then you either quit, get sued, get bought, or give them most of your profits.

jagtodeath 10y ago

I'd rather google patent them than some other sue-happy company who will abuse them. Who knows, maybe they will open source the patent.

nivla 10y ago
I rather no company patent them than any do-no-evil company. Besides why do you think they won't use/abuse it? The whole point of spending so much ridiculous amount of money on a patent is to get exclusive rights to be the only one to use it. Isn't competition better than stagnation by a single company?
- kailuowang 10y ago
  so, how do you ensure no company patent them?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodman 10y ago
    Demonstrate prior art? There are a lot of ways to do that without releasing production code.
    - breatheoften 10y ago
      Given historical prescedent, is existence of prior art actually an effective way in practice to prevent the granting of a patent?
      - woodman 10y ago
        Nope, but that doesn't matter - as enforcement is the concern, and there prior art shines. If the motive is purely defensive (and I don't include the menacing of a portfolio in that category), then it is the ideal move to make - as bad actors waste more energy filing poorly researched and easily refuted patents.

laxatives 10y ago

It is not enough to succeed; others must fail.

alangpierce 10y ago

I don't know what Google's reason is for this patent, but defensive patents are really common these days, and I think just about any big company has lawyers saying "patent everything you can, since you need a big patent portfolio for defensive purposes". Point is, just because Google is filing this patent doesn't mean they intend to stop others from using this approach. A link to a patent application isn't enough context to know.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
If Google intends to patent defensively, they should immediately pledge on this patent. One thing I find very unfortunate, is while Google claims they're only really intended to use their software patents defensively, they've pledged not to with only a tiny number of their patent library. One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll.
- unprepare 10y ago
  Maybe that's their backup plan if the internet run by ads continues its decline
  - Grazester 10y ago
    Continues its decline? I thought that decline what only in a certain metric or ad type
    - themartorana 10y ago
      Maybe HTML in-browser ads, but native, in-flow software ads and demand-based "rewarded" ads basically prop up the entire mobile software (especially gaming) market. There's only growth there, no slowing.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll Is there any big tech company for which this statement does not apply? Or do you hold Google to a higher standard?