4 ms·

Google patenting backprop is quite ridiculous. Since most if not all ML researchers come across this at some point and is used in many commercial applications.

by sdan 7y ago

Google patenting backprop is quite ridiculous. Since most if not all ML researchers come across this at some point and is used in many commercial applications. Not sure why they did it in the first place, but it's likely impossible to regulate. Here's their patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5052043A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5052043A/en

malms 7y ago
They did it to protect themselves from patent trolls.
- buboard 7y ago
  That's a ridiculous argument. Google has patented way more than this (most recently all kinds of recurrent nets for sequences). As long as these patents belong to alphabet they 're dangerous. Google could have set up a nonprofit for them if they really cared. What if google is bought out in 5 years? What if they get real competition and decide to go full evil? These patents are overly broad, overly premature. They should never have been granted in the first place. I think the NN pioneers who are first names in these patents should set up a nonprofit themselves. Hopefully many of them still seem to believe in the ethic of science , having lived decades in which nobody cared about NNs
  - 0-_-0 7y ago
    Google is not the only company who accumulated a patent portfolio to be used defensively. If they start suing people they can expect to be sued back. It would also potentially ruin Google's relationship with other companies who would be reluctant to work with them if it could lead to a chance to be sued: e.g. If you sell some technology to Google to use they can discover that it has something that looks like something that they patented, which is enough grounds to sue you. This is too much risk for companies who don't have the money to mount a legal defense, even if they don't actually violate any patents. The current state is sort of a patent cold war where both sides have weapons but they don't use them. So we get the advantages of patents (disclosure) without many of the potential disadvantages.
    - buboard 7y ago
      If OTOH, USPTO had rejected these applications there would be no need for this cold war
      - 0-_-0 7y ago
        Sure, but then a lot of developed technology would remain secret forever.
ChrisLomont 7y ago
That’s an expired patent from 1990 assigned to Kodak. It’s also not as broad as patenting backdrop.
AlexCoventry 7y ago
It was very inconsiderate to waste other readers' time with this easily checked misinformation. What was the point?

by sdan 7y ago

malms 7y ago

They did it to protect themselves from patent trolls.

buboard 7y ago
That's a ridiculous argument. Google has patented way more than this (most recently all kinds of recurrent nets for sequences). As long as these patents belong to alphabet they 're dangerous. Google could have set up a nonprofit for them if they really cared. What if google is bought out in 5 years? What if they get real competition and decide to go full evil? These patents are overly broad, overly premature. They should never have been granted in the first place. I think the NN pioneers who are first names in these patents should set up a nonprofit themselves. Hopefully many of them still seem to believe in the ethic of science , having lived decades in which nobody cared about NNs
- 0-_-0 7y ago
  Google is not the only company who accumulated a patent portfolio to be used defensively. If they start suing people they can expect to be sued back. It would also potentially ruin Google's relationship with other companies who would be reluctant to work with them if it could lead to a chance to be sued: e.g. If you sell some technology to Google to use they can discover that it has something that looks like something that they patented, which is enough grounds to sue you. This is too much risk for companies who don't have the money to mount a legal defense, even if they don't actually violate any patents. The current state is sort of a patent cold war where both sides have weapons but they don't use them. So we get the advantages of patents (disclosure) without many of the potential disadvantages.
  - buboard 7y ago
    If OTOH, USPTO had rejected these applications there would be no need for this cold war
    - 0-_-0 7y ago
      Sure, but then a lot of developed technology would remain secret forever.

ChrisLomont 7y ago

That’s an expired patent from 1990 assigned to Kodak. It’s also not as broad as patenting backdrop.

AlexCoventry 7y ago

It was very inconsiderate to waste other readers' time with this easily checked misinformation. What was the point?