3 ms·

How about, stop patenting ideas? Stop granting ridiculous patents when it isn't even certain they re the first inventors? These patents are way too premature an

How about, stop patenting ideas? Stop granting ridiculous patents when it isn't even certain they re the first inventors? These patents are way too premature and dangerous If the USPTO has trouble understanding a technology, they should err on the side of caution and NOT grant the patents, instead of asking for comments ex post-facto Take for example Dropout. This is a ridiculous thing to patent. Dropout is essentially half your network malfunctioning. A computer that randomly caught fire could "come up" with the same "algorithm". How can the USPTO judge that patenting this thing in any way would help innovation (that's the purpose of patents). In fact, most researchers will now be discouraged from researching dropout-like techniques any further

speedplane 7y ago
> How about, stop patenting ideas? Stop granting ridiculous patents when it isn't even certain they re the first inventors? These patents are way too premature and dangerous. For all the faults of patents (and there are many), one of the great benefits is that when you patent something, you must publish it for all to see. If we want to keep innovation moving along quickly, there needs to be incentives to publish your findings for everyone to review and build on. The lawsuits don't really start until someone starts making big money. Yes, they are burdensome and expensive, but I'd rather keep innovation moving quickly and having the winner pay a tax than not having any innovation at all.
- lordnacho 7y ago
  > For all the faults of patents (and there are many), one of the great benefits is that when you patent something, you must publish it for all to see. Do people tend to learn things from patent filings, or from other sources? I've looked at a few patents, and they don't read like anything that tries to educate the reader.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Do people tend to learn things from patent filings, or from other sources? When you file for a patent, it usually does not get published to the public for 18 months. In those 18 months, the inventors usually publicly announce themselves (they have patent protection, so there's little harm doing so). If they didn't have patent protection, there would be much more resistance to publishing your work.
- buboard 7y ago
  > If we want to keep innovation moving along quickly, there needs to be incentives to publish your findings for everyone to review and build on. There is more than plenty of open research in NNs. There is absolutely zero insights in these patents that is not already published. I also find it a very weak argument in favor of patents. You can reverse-engineer anything, no need to read the filings
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > There is absolutely zero insights in these patents that is not already published. The general procedure for many about to publish a research paper in a growing field is to get a patent application on file first. There wouldn't be nearly as many publications if there were no patent protection.
- phkahler 7y ago
  The publication benefit is gone. Most patents are worthless for gaining understanding. They're written to be deliberately vague so as to encompass as much as possible. There may be some details, but a store knowledge they are not.
  - furyofantares 7y ago
    And what's worse, the legal advice I've often been given is not to read patents at all. It's considered a liability to have read a patent.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  this may have been true traditionally but most AI research is completely out in the open, so this seems redundant at best.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > most AI research is completely out in the open, so this seems redundant at best. It wouldn't be as open if there were no patents. When researchers working for a big company are about to file a research paper, their corporate sponsors get the patent application containing their work on file first.
hackinthebochs 7y ago
>Dropout is essentially half your network malfunctioning. A computer that randomly caught fire could "come up" with the same "algorithm". This is so incredibly wrongheaded I don't even know where to begin.
- dnautics 7y ago
  in as much as it's wrong in the ML sense (I seem to have become a network engineer for an ML company) it's a pretty funny analogy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

speedplane 7y ago

> How about, stop patenting ideas? Stop granting ridiculous patents when it isn't even certain they re the first inventors? These patents are way too premature and dangerous. For all the faults of patents (and there are many), one of the great benefits is that when you patent something, you must publish it for all to see. If we want to keep innovation moving along quickly, there needs to be incentives to publish your findings for everyone to review and build on. The lawsuits don't really start until someone starts making big money. Yes, they are burdensome and expensive, but I'd rather keep innovation moving quickly and having the winner pay a tax than not having any innovation at all.

lordnacho 7y ago
> For all the faults of patents (and there are many), one of the great benefits is that when you patent something, you must publish it for all to see. Do people tend to learn things from patent filings, or from other sources? I've looked at a few patents, and they don't read like anything that tries to educate the reader.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Do people tend to learn things from patent filings, or from other sources? When you file for a patent, it usually does not get published to the public for 18 months. In those 18 months, the inventors usually publicly announce themselves (they have patent protection, so there's little harm doing so). If they didn't have patent protection, there would be much more resistance to publishing your work.
buboard 7y ago
> If we want to keep innovation moving along quickly, there needs to be incentives to publish your findings for everyone to review and build on. There is more than plenty of open research in NNs. There is absolutely zero insights in these patents that is not already published. I also find it a very weak argument in favor of patents. You can reverse-engineer anything, no need to read the filings
- speedplane 7y ago
  > There is absolutely zero insights in these patents that is not already published. The general procedure for many about to publish a research paper in a growing field is to get a patent application on file first. There wouldn't be nearly as many publications if there were no patent protection.
phkahler 7y ago
The publication benefit is gone. Most patents are worthless for gaining understanding. They're written to be deliberately vague so as to encompass as much as possible. There may be some details, but a store knowledge they are not.
- furyofantares 7y ago
  And what's worse, the legal advice I've often been given is not to read patents at all. It's considered a liability to have read a patent.
Barrin92 7y ago
this may have been true traditionally but most AI research is completely out in the open, so this seems redundant at best.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > most AI research is completely out in the open, so this seems redundant at best. It wouldn't be as open if there were no patents. When researchers working for a big company are about to file a research paper, their corporate sponsors get the patent application containing their work on file first.

hackinthebochs 7y ago

>Dropout is essentially half your network malfunctioning. A computer that randomly caught fire could "come up" with the same "algorithm". This is so incredibly wrongheaded I don't even know where to begin.

dnautics 7y ago
in as much as it's wrong in the ML sense (I seem to have become a network engineer for an ML company) it's a pretty funny analogy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]