5 ms·

IBM Patented Euler's 200 Year Old Math Technique for 'AI Interpretability'

172 points by busymom0 1y ago

mv4 1y ago
I remember reading that IBM holds a staggering number of patents - over 150,000 in the US alone.
CountHackulus 1y ago
When I worked there many decades ago, I had pressure and saw people get rewards for patenting everything you could. Seems like things haven't changed.
stuffn 1y ago
This is the primary reason IP patents should be thrown out. They're far too easy to get, exist primarily for the purpose of rent seeking, and generally provide nothing useful to the public knowledge.
anthk 1y ago
Good in case of Europe has a shortage on toilet paper. Also, this might be tangentially related to Fractan. Any Mathematician there? if there's some relation, the patent might be void/null. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN
- noir_lord 1y ago
  While we might get to laugh at those silly people with their software patents (and describing them as toilet paper is quite funny) it still has real world effects for us. For many years I had to install a linux distro and then mess around with freetype because there was a valid patent on subpixel hinting that was valid in the US and irrelevant in Europe but because the distro's I used at the time where US based I got caught in the cross fire. Given the huge imbalance between US tech and Europe Tech (and rest of the world really) in software they sneeze, we get flu. That only stopped been a problem when the patents expired[1]. [1] https://freetype.org/patents.html https://freetype.org/patents.html
  - anthk 1y ago
    That's why you should always use either European or Canadian mirrors. On FreeType, maybe Clear Type related; but I remember some slight hinting methods not related to cleartype which looked far superior on flat LCD screens IMHO. Another one was Lame and MP3. And I remember the codecs issue with the Penguin Liberation Front for Mandrake, LIVNA for another distro and Debian Multimedia, among others.
pkaye 1y ago
Isn't this just a patent application? Also what are the actual patent claims? I was not able to find a link to the application.
- kristjansson 1y ago
  https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230401438A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230401438A1
ipfreely 1y ago
Misleading. This has not been patented. The author links to a patent publication, which happens to the vast majority of patent filings in the U.S. There was a rejection of this patent application mailed by the USPTO in August 2025.
- analog31 1y ago
  Rejection is when the fun begins. Note that I'm not a lawyer, but I do have 20+ patents, none in the software realm. Rejection means you get to revise your application and re-submit with a new deadline and new fees. Your chances of getting it accepted on the second or third try can vary. Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether, but may be granted with severely narrowed claims. Also, you can revise the claims without changing the text, within limits, which results in granting of a patent with a very broad text followed by narrow claims
  - phendrenad2 11mo ago
    > Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether For a rather unpopular definition of "seldom", sure.
rdtsc 1y ago
The patent system for software is garbage, but it also doesn't seem to jive with the title. They don't claim to invent continued fractions, what they patent is applying them to some domain. https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230401438#history https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230401438#history > A method, a neural network, and a computer program product are provided that provide training of neural networks with continued fractions architectures. It's a bit like the propelling device https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en -- it doesn't invent or patent shoes, or invent or patent springs, but it patents attaching springs to shoes. It would seem using continued fractions with elliptic curves what the author wants to do, wouldn't be covered. However, I still think it can still be challenged if someone can show that continued fractions have been used in with NN before. Or even better, maybe pytorch or other open source projects can explicitly reject crap that's patented. If you put your shit in a junk patent, take it out of the project and enjoy yourself, don't spread it around. So, if the authors of the patent are the ones pushing for the inclusion, then someone should challenge that and have it removed unless the patent is withdrawn.
- ajb 1y ago
  The problem here is whether just applying some well studied technique to a new area like AI is really inventive enough to be patentable. There were loads of patents which basically added "in a computer" to some existing technique. Just because NN's are novel doesn't mean people should be able to get an exclusionary property right over the use of well known techniques in NN's because they put in half a day's work to be the first to apply that technique to NN's. This isn't the Guinness book of records.
IceHegel 1y ago
Whether or not the patent was actually granted in this case, I have not been able to think of a compelling reason to have patents for software. In fact, I think most intellectual property laws need to be seriously rethought. If the objective is to maximize investment by protecting successful results, I don't think our system is doing a very good job.
keeda 1y ago
Before this devolves into the morass of outraged comments that usually comprises any discussion of patents, here is the golden rule I coined for such threads: RTFC: Read the Fucking Claims The claims are the only part of the patent that really matter because those are the only enforceable language. Plus, this is a patent application so the claims have not even been examined yet. Without commenting on the merits of this patent itself, remember that new applications of existing techniques are still novel, and hence patentable. In fact, if you think about it, almost all inventions and innovations are just applying novel combinations of well-known techniques to new use-cases. (Anything that doesn't fit that definition and introduces genuinely new methods is usually in the "groundbreaking" category.) So I'd guess "applying old technique to new problem" is probably the case here. I'm no subject matter expert, and there may be prior art that invalidates this, or it may not meet the non-obviousness bar... but when the "200 year old math" came about neural networks were not really a thing.
linuxhansl 1y ago
Software patents are mostly garbage and unneeded. And I say that having some in my name (I actually tried to get my name off them, but our lawyers said it's not possible). Show me one useful software patent that (a) is not "obvious to one skilled in the art", and (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one! Software rarely requires expensive research that would be worth protecting. Rather than enabling a fair market, this takes fairness out of the market. Software patents are like getting a patent on "Murder story with final revelation of who did it." Maybe add one or two features, like a "detective with hat", etc. In one fell swoop you would be able to own most murder mysteries. Software (like books, stories, art, etc) is better handled by Copyright law. May the one who actually has a better product win! Sorry for the rant.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  I agree with your rant. I have a similar one. I personally think that software should mostly just not be patentable at all, since (among others) these things are not patentable according to US patent law: scientific discoveries, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, and rules or methods for performing mental acts.
  - bandofthehawk 1y ago
    In addition, software is also copyrightable, which makes much more sense than patents for protecting unauthorized use. IMO, patents for software should be mostly eliminated, and even copyright terms should be much shorter.
    - observationist 1y ago
      5 years full copyright, 5 years noncommercial unrestricted fair use with mandatory attribution, then straight to public domain. Berne Convention be damned, and multigenerational copyrights can go straight to hell as well. Software patents are stupid, and even more so with AI soon to be able to take arbitrary compiled code and produce readable, well composed source in a target language with documentation and optimizations. Studios and platforms and funds and giant corporations that "own" terabytes of IP are a cancer. We're going to have to fix copyright. Until then, pirate everything.
zkmon 1y ago
I don't think they are patenting any classical math as the blog claims. It's an architecture using CF that is patented, I believe. Ofcourse, patents are trash.
shmerl 1y ago
Reminds this: https://theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663/ https://theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-181956466...
radiator 1y ago
Is there not a legal way to fight this back? With this patent application, someone is trying to establish an advantage *against everyone else*. So legally, anyone might have self-interest to sue the applicant, if the application is fraudulent (because for example it is a stolen 200-year-old mathematical method). I mean, such patent applications should not be a freeroll, they should also entail some risk for the applicant.
Beijinger 11mo ago
Relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainitpeter/comments/1ovy31o/explain_it_peter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainitpeter/comments/1ovy31o/exp...
juancn 11mo ago
They probably did it for the bonus. Most large companies pay you a bonus when a patent is filed, when it's granted and when it's licensed. It's one of the few ways to change your income on such companies as a technical person.

172 points by busymom0 1y ago

mv4 1y ago

I remember reading that IBM holds a staggering number of patents - over 150,000 in the US alone.

When I worked there many decades ago, I had pressure and saw people get rewards for patenting everything you could. Seems like things haven't changed.

stuffn 1y ago

This is the primary reason IP patents should be thrown out. They're far too easy to get, exist primarily for the purpose of rent seeking, and generally provide nothing useful to the public knowledge.

anthk 1y ago

Good in case of Europe has a shortage on toilet paper. Also, this might be tangentially related to Fractan. Any Mathematician there? if there's some relation, the patent might be void/null. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN

noir_lord 1y ago
While we might get to laugh at those silly people with their software patents (and describing them as toilet paper is quite funny) it still has real world effects for us. For many years I had to install a linux distro and then mess around with freetype because there was a valid patent on subpixel hinting that was valid in the US and irrelevant in Europe but because the distro's I used at the time where US based I got caught in the cross fire. Given the huge imbalance between US tech and Europe Tech (and rest of the world really) in software they sneeze, we get flu. That only stopped been a problem when the patents expired[1]. [1] https://freetype.org/patents.html https://freetype.org/patents.html
- anthk 1y ago
  That's why you should always use either European or Canadian mirrors. On FreeType, maybe Clear Type related; but I remember some slight hinting methods not related to cleartype which looked far superior on flat LCD screens IMHO. Another one was Lame and MP3. And I remember the codecs issue with the Penguin Liberation Front for Mandrake, LIVNA for another distro and Debian Multimedia, among others.

pkaye 1y ago

Isn't this just a patent application? Also what are the actual patent claims? I was not able to find a link to the application.

kristjansson 1y ago
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230401438A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230401438A1

ipfreely 1y ago

Misleading. This has not been patented. The author links to a patent publication, which happens to the vast majority of patent filings in the U.S. There was a rejection of this patent application mailed by the USPTO in August 2025.

analog31 1y ago
Rejection is when the fun begins. Note that I'm not a lawyer, but I do have 20+ patents, none in the software realm. Rejection means you get to revise your application and re-submit with a new deadline and new fees. Your chances of getting it accepted on the second or third try can vary. Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether, but may be granted with severely narrowed claims. Also, you can revise the claims without changing the text, within limits, which results in granting of a patent with a very broad text followed by narrow claims
- phendrenad2 11mo ago
  > Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether For a rather unpopular definition of "seldom", sure.

rdtsc 1y ago

The patent system for software is garbage, but it also doesn't seem to jive with the title. They don't claim to invent continued fractions, what they patent is applying them to some domain. https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230401438#history https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230401438#history > A method, a neural network, and a computer program product are provided that provide training of neural networks with continued fractions architectures. It's a bit like the propelling device https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en -- it doesn't invent or patent shoes, or invent or patent springs, but it patents attaching springs to shoes. It would seem using continued fractions with elliptic curves what the author wants to do, wouldn't be covered. However, I still think it can still be challenged if someone can show that continued fractions have been used in with NN before. Or even better, maybe pytorch or other open source projects can explicitly reject crap that's patented. If you put your shit in a junk patent, take it out of the project and enjoy yourself, don't spread it around. So, if the authors of the patent are the ones pushing for the inclusion, then someone should challenge that and have it removed unless the patent is withdrawn.

ajb 1y ago
The problem here is whether just applying some well studied technique to a new area like AI is really inventive enough to be patentable. There were loads of patents which basically added "in a computer" to some existing technique. Just because NN's are novel doesn't mean people should be able to get an exclusionary property right over the use of well known techniques in NN's because they put in half a day's work to be the first to apply that technique to NN's. This isn't the Guinness book of records.

IceHegel 1y ago

Whether or not the patent was actually granted in this case, I have not been able to think of a compelling reason to have patents for software. In fact, I think most intellectual property laws need to be seriously rethought. If the objective is to maximize investment by protecting successful results, I don't think our system is doing a very good job.

keeda 1y ago

Before this devolves into the morass of outraged comments that usually comprises any discussion of patents, here is the golden rule I coined for such threads: RTFC: Read the Fucking Claims The claims are the only part of the patent that really matter because those are the only enforceable language. Plus, this is a patent application so the claims have not even been examined yet. Without commenting on the merits of this patent itself, remember that new applications of existing techniques are still novel, and hence patentable. In fact, if you think about it, almost all inventions and innovations are just applying novel combinations of well-known techniques to new use-cases. (Anything that doesn't fit that definition and introduces genuinely new methods is usually in the "groundbreaking" category.) So I'd guess "applying old technique to new problem" is probably the case here. I'm no subject matter expert, and there may be prior art that invalidates this, or it may not meet the non-obviousness bar... but when the "200 year old math" came about neural networks were not really a thing.

linuxhansl 1y ago

Software patents are mostly garbage and unneeded. And I say that having some in my name (I actually tried to get my name off them, but our lawyers said it's not possible). Show me one useful software patent that (a) is not "obvious to one skilled in the art", and (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one! Software rarely requires expensive research that would be worth protecting. Rather than enabling a fair market, this takes fairness out of the market. Software patents are like getting a patent on "Murder story with final revelation of who did it." Maybe add one or two features, like a "detective with hat", etc. In one fell swoop you would be able to own most murder mysteries. Software (like books, stories, art, etc) is better handled by Copyright law. May the one who actually has a better product win! Sorry for the rant.

JohnFen 1y ago
I agree with your rant. I have a similar one. I personally think that software should mostly just not be patentable at all, since (among others) these things are not patentable according to US patent law: scientific discoveries, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, and rules or methods for performing mental acts.
- bandofthehawk 1y ago
  In addition, software is also copyrightable, which makes much more sense than patents for protecting unauthorized use. IMO, patents for software should be mostly eliminated, and even copyright terms should be much shorter.
  - observationist 1y ago
    5 years full copyright, 5 years noncommercial unrestricted fair use with mandatory attribution, then straight to public domain. Berne Convention be damned, and multigenerational copyrights can go straight to hell as well. Software patents are stupid, and even more so with AI soon to be able to take arbitrary compiled code and produce readable, well composed source in a target language with documentation and optimizations. Studios and platforms and funds and giant corporations that "own" terabytes of IP are a cancer. We're going to have to fix copyright. Until then, pirate everything.

zkmon 1y ago

I don't think they are patenting any classical math as the blog claims. It's an architecture using CF that is patented, I believe. Ofcourse, patents are trash.

shmerl 1y ago

Reminds this: https://theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-1819564663/ https://theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-181956466...

radiator 1y ago

Is there not a legal way to fight this back? With this patent application, someone is trying to establish an advantage *against everyone else*. So legally, anyone might have self-interest to sue the applicant, if the application is fraudulent (because for example it is a stolen 200-year-old mathematical method). I mean, such patent applications should not be a freeroll, they should also entail some risk for the applicant.

Beijinger 11mo ago

Relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainitpeter/comments/1ovy31o/explain_it_peter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainitpeter/comments/1ovy31o/exp...

juancn 11mo ago

They probably did it for the bonus. Most large companies pay you a bonus when a patent is filed, when it's granted and when it's licensed. It's one of the few ways to change your income on such companies as a technical person.