81 ms·

Can't remember a single time Google sued people for patent infringement except for that one time against BT [0] (which was retaliatory anyway). These are purel

Can't remember a single time Google sued people for patent infringement except for that one time against BT [0] (which was retaliatory anyway). These are purely defensive patents because they know that other companies will be more than happy to sue them for patent infringement. DeepMind (+ other research organizations at Google) are among the biggest publishers of AI papers + open-source AI code. [0] https://www.ft.com/content/ea436a88-762a-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/ea436a88-762a-11e2-8eb6-00144feab...

adammenges 8y ago
Non pay walled version: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094
blt 8y ago
TBH, I would say the ratio of code published to papers published for DeepMind is pretty small. They have generated a lot of non reproducible results.
- deepnotderp 8y ago
  Yes, small as in almost zero.
- halflings 8y ago
  Yes, the ratio is pretty low for DeepMind. Higher for Google Brain. Still, DeepMind open-sourced two major frameworks: Sonnet (general DL) [0] and DeepMind Lab (RL environment) [1]. [0] https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-sonnet/ https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-sonnet/ [1] https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-deepmind-lab/ https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-deepmind-lab/
  - blt 8y ago
    Frameworks != reproducible results. Ideally, they'd release all the code you need to get the results from the DDPG paper. I recognize that the code probably depends on proprietary DeepMind tools, making this not feasible. Still, it sucks.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
There is two cases of protecting IP in the history of Google. The first started at Moto before Google purchased and they let continue. The other was the best known which was the Waymo suit with Uber. Google gets patents to protect themselves from someone else getting but do not use. Google instead gives away tons of IP. Like Borg with K8s. Or VP8 and then on top indicates they will protect anyone that uses from patent infringement and on top gives for free. Or SPDY or map/reduce or GFS or so many others could have patent and hurt the industry but instead gave away and helped the industry push forward. Can't think of any other company that has given away more valuable IP than Google.
- nightski 8y ago
  This is true while they are on top. I feel like if any company or technology comes along to threaten that position it could change.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Maybe. But also realize you have to protect patents. So if they do not which clearly they do not then no issue. Also realize Google culture was there when they started and weak and now they are dominate it continues. Perfect example is owning Chrome and Android which are the dominate two clients. Then own the top 2 web sites with Search and YouTube. They create a better protocol which saves money with SPDY. Gives a better user experience. But even thought they have NOTHING to gain sharing they do and give away to the standards committee. They do NOT use as a competitive advantage which is just standard good business practices. That is just not what MS did when in power. Instead they give it away to help everyone. Also so much very valuable IP they just give away to the industry to help everyone. Kubernettes is a perfect example. But there is so many more. Why on earth do you help your competitors? But they help competitors that do just evil things against them. They give away Android to Amazon who uses on their Echo, Dot and Fire among other hardware. In return Google gets a ban for ALL companies being allowed to sell the competing Google products. Not just Amazon will NOT sell as that is understandable but they will NOT allow anyone to sell them! But then SPDY is changed and Google goes back and pays the expense of supporting the changes.
nerdponx 8y ago
This has been discussed before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating: a law that you need to rely on being selectively enforced is a bad law.
- daveguy 8y ago
  The law isn't selectively enforced, the patents are selectively enforced at the discretion of the patent holder. Patents are broken as hell, but being able to file defensive patents isn't the problem -- it's a symptom. Personally don't think there should be software patents.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    These aren't even software patents. They are patents on mathematical procedures. Just skim over US20180075343A1 [0] to see what I mean. It's not a patent on a particular application of sequence processing using neural networks. It's not a patent on a particular neural network architecture. It's a patent on the generic use of neural networks for sequence processing. It's not a specific process, it's an idea that encompasses a broad class of processes. There is no sane patent system in which that should be patentable. Frankly, I don't have a problem with patenting specific algorithms or software implementations. Those, to me, are specific processes. These DeepMind patents are on another level. Edit: I'm not a patent lawyer. Please correct me if I've read that patent wrong. It's basically a neural network mini-textbook/literature review. [0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180075343A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180075343A1/
    - wuschel 8y ago
      Not sure about the patentibility of those patents (they are still all in the application phase, and I have not read them), but to my understanding patents a) have to be tested before court and b) often fall back to less generic claims in practice (claim no. N, with N > 1), if not being completely invalidated. Now, I expect Google to have good patent lawyers, but time will show the value of those patents.
hknd 8y ago
^ this.
jimbofisher1 8y ago
Given HN's recent bashing of Google for abandoning it's Don't be Evil mantra this seems like a rather absurd position to take. "Google totes won't abuse this at all!"
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Why do we continue to get posts like this on HN with inaccurate information when shown to not be true multiple times? Google did NOT end the motto and has now has employees have it the last thing read in the document as brains are LIFO. Here is a link to the actual document. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Google Code of Conduct - Investor Relations - Alphabet As you can see it is right there on the last line. Can you update your post with accurate information? Thanks!
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Hope with it being pointed out with a link that your post is incorrect that you might consider updating it?
gomox 8y ago
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
marcosdumay 8y ago
How many times did Google threaten small companies under seal with its patent portifolio? If you don't know this number, the one you pointed out is basically useless.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Do you know that number? I have yet to hear a single instance or even rumor of that happening. Your post is the first time I've even seen it mentioned. Do you have any proof to back it up? When you make bold claims like that, I think the onus is on you to back it up.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  I am not aware of them ever doing that. There is only two cases where there has been any IP aspect that I am aware of? One started by Moto before them purchasing and the other the Waymo trade secrets case with Uber. Google has purchased tons of patents but they use for cross license and NOT for royalities. Are you confusing Google and Microsoft? MS does use their patents for royalities and perfect example is getting more per Android phone sold from royalities than Google gets.
cowpig 8y ago
> DeepMind (+ other research organizations at Google) are among the biggest publishers of AI papers + open-source AI code. DeepMind is absolutely _not_ a big publisher of open-source AI code, and their papers tend to be very high-level and leave many important details out.
billybolton 8y ago
They will sue if they see an emerging threat to the survivability of their core buisness. No one can touch Google on their ads and search ecosystem so they won’t sue. This is an illusion of benevolence.

adammenges 8y ago

Non pay walled version: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094

blt 8y ago

TBH, I would say the ratio of code published to papers published for DeepMind is pretty small. They have generated a lot of non reproducible results.

deepnotderp 8y ago
Yes, small as in almost zero.
halflings 8y ago
Yes, the ratio is pretty low for DeepMind. Higher for Google Brain. Still, DeepMind open-sourced two major frameworks: Sonnet (general DL) [0] and DeepMind Lab (RL environment) [1]. [0] https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-sonnet/ https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-sonnet/ [1] https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-deepmind-lab/ https://deepmind.com/blog/open-sourcing-deepmind-lab/
- blt 8y ago
  Frameworks != reproducible results. Ideally, they'd release all the code you need to get the results from the DDPG paper. I recognize that the code probably depends on proprietary DeepMind tools, making this not feasible. Still, it sucks.

jacksmith21006 8y ago

There is two cases of protecting IP in the history of Google. The first started at Moto before Google purchased and they let continue. The other was the best known which was the Waymo suit with Uber. Google gets patents to protect themselves from someone else getting but do not use. Google instead gives away tons of IP. Like Borg with K8s. Or VP8 and then on top indicates they will protect anyone that uses from patent infringement and on top gives for free. Or SPDY or map/reduce or GFS or so many others could have patent and hurt the industry but instead gave away and helped the industry push forward. Can't think of any other company that has given away more valuable IP than Google.

nightski 8y ago
This is true while they are on top. I feel like if any company or technology comes along to threaten that position it could change.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Maybe. But also realize you have to protect patents. So if they do not which clearly they do not then no issue. Also realize Google culture was there when they started and weak and now they are dominate it continues. Perfect example is owning Chrome and Android which are the dominate two clients. Then own the top 2 web sites with Search and YouTube. They create a better protocol which saves money with SPDY. Gives a better user experience. But even thought they have NOTHING to gain sharing they do and give away to the standards committee. They do NOT use as a competitive advantage which is just standard good business practices. That is just not what MS did when in power. Instead they give it away to help everyone. Also so much very valuable IP they just give away to the industry to help everyone. Kubernettes is a perfect example. But there is so many more. Why on earth do you help your competitors? But they help competitors that do just evil things against them. They give away Android to Amazon who uses on their Echo, Dot and Fire among other hardware. In return Google gets a ban for ALL companies being allowed to sell the competing Google products. Not just Amazon will NOT sell as that is understandable but they will NOT allow anyone to sell them! But then SPDY is changed and Google goes back and pays the expense of supporting the changes.

nerdponx 8y ago

This has been discussed before, here and elsewhere, but it bears repeating: a law that you need to rely on being selectively enforced is a bad law.

daveguy 8y ago
The law isn't selectively enforced, the patents are selectively enforced at the discretion of the patent holder. Patents are broken as hell, but being able to file defensive patents isn't the problem -- it's a symptom. Personally don't think there should be software patents.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  These aren't even software patents. They are patents on mathematical procedures. Just skim over US20180075343A1 [0] to see what I mean. It's not a patent on a particular application of sequence processing using neural networks. It's not a patent on a particular neural network architecture. It's a patent on the generic use of neural networks for sequence processing. It's not a specific process, it's an idea that encompasses a broad class of processes. There is no sane patent system in which that should be patentable. Frankly, I don't have a problem with patenting specific algorithms or software implementations. Those, to me, are specific processes. These DeepMind patents are on another level. Edit: I'm not a patent lawyer. Please correct me if I've read that patent wrong. It's basically a neural network mini-textbook/literature review. [0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180075343A1/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180075343A1/
  - wuschel 8y ago
    Not sure about the patentibility of those patents (they are still all in the application phase, and I have not read them), but to my understanding patents a) have to be tested before court and b) often fall back to less generic claims in practice (claim no. N, with N > 1), if not being completely invalidated. Now, I expect Google to have good patent lawyers, but time will show the value of those patents.

hknd 8y ago

^ this.

jimbofisher1 8y ago

Given HN's recent bashing of Google for abandoning it's Don't be Evil mantra this seems like a rather absurd position to take. "Google totes won't abuse this at all!"

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Why do we continue to get posts like this on HN with inaccurate information when shown to not be true multiple times? Google did NOT end the motto and has now has employees have it the last thing read in the document as brains are LIFO. Here is a link to the actual document. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Google Code of Conduct - Investor Relations - Alphabet As you can see it is right there on the last line. Can you update your post with accurate information? Thanks!
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Hope with it being pointed out with a link that your post is incorrect that you might consider updating it?

gomox 8y ago

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

marcosdumay 8y ago

How many times did Google threaten small companies under seal with its patent portifolio? If you don't know this number, the one you pointed out is basically useless.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ehsankia 8y ago
Do you know that number? I have yet to hear a single instance or even rumor of that happening. Your post is the first time I've even seen it mentioned. Do you have any proof to back it up? When you make bold claims like that, I think the onus is on you to back it up.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
I am not aware of them ever doing that. There is only two cases where there has been any IP aspect that I am aware of? One started by Moto before them purchasing and the other the Waymo trade secrets case with Uber. Google has purchased tons of patents but they use for cross license and NOT for royalities. Are you confusing Google and Microsoft? MS does use their patents for royalities and perfect example is getting more per Android phone sold from royalities than Google gets.

cowpig 8y ago

> DeepMind (+ other research organizations at Google) are among the biggest publishers of AI papers + open-source AI code. DeepMind is absolutely _not_ a big publisher of open-source AI code, and their papers tend to be very high-level and leave many important details out.

billybolton 8y ago

They will sue if they see an emerging threat to the survivability of their core buisness. No one can touch Google on their ads and search ecosystem so they won’t sue. This is an illusion of benevolence.