Google Applies For Patents That Touch On Fundamental AI Concepts 101
mikejuk writes: Google may have been wowing the web with its trippy images from neural networks but meanwhile it has just revealed that it has applied for at least six patents on fundamental neural network and AI [concepts]. This isn't good for academic research or for the development of AI by companies. The patents are on very specific things invented by Geoffrey Hinton's team like using drop out during training, or modifying data to provide additional training cases, but also include very general ideas such as classification itself. If Google was granted a patent on classification it would cover just about every method used for pattern recognition! You might make the charitable assumption that Google has just patented the ideas so that it can protect them — i.e. to stop other more evil companies from patenting them and extracting fees from open source implementations of machine learning libraries. Google has just started an AI arms race, and you can expect others to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because communism had different problems than capitalism doesn't make it a better system. I'm quite skeptical of ANY system that centralizes power into the hands of a small group.
That said, actual communism (by which I do not mean Marxism or Lenninism) works quite well in groups small enough that everyone knows everyone else. Probably up to around 50 people. Even there it needs escape hatches, and it fails if applied dogmatically rather than as a natural result of the group's underlying philosophy.
Re: We need COMMUNISM NOW! (Score:1)
Very interested to hear about how trading stocks is not gambling when accounting for costs and losses.
Re: (Score:1)
Any single political system will not work in its "pure" form. Not one single one of them. Most people, I thought, understood this. I was wrong. That is not directed at you, obviously. No socialism, communism, capitalism, anarchist, or other type of system will work effectively. Moderation is key and zealots are stupid regardless of their zealotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry mate Its the stupidity of the ordinary people that's the whole problem. They voted for a piece 'Crapron', they would vote to have their children chopped up and fed to policemen if they were told to. Its the limitless stupidity of ordinary people that is the real problem with democracy...
Hey I'm a socialist - but not a nationalist... :)
Re: (Score:1)
[X] I am a wigger
Why be down wi dat, troll boi?!
Re: (Score:2)
constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~)
You may find yourself in violation of a Microsoft patent.
"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the cus
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. If there are large up front costs, then patents are valuable. This, however, is not true of software. Working software is either small scale or is developed incrementally from intermediate working forms. Rather like evolution. Patents are not needed.
You could, of course, claim that drugs (e.g.) should be developed the same way, but the damage that an unevaluated drug can do has lead to regulations that have caused there to be an expensive up front cost.
Google has a 14 step plan (Score:5, Funny)
0 GOOGLE
1 GOGGLE
2 GIGGLE
3 JIGGLE
4 JINGLE
5 JUNGLE
6 BUNGLE
7 BUNGEE
8 BUNGED
9 BUNKED
10 BANKED
11 BACKED
12 PACKED
13 PICKED
14 WICKED
Re: (Score:2)
brilliant
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather Google has these patents than anyone else. So far, Google has only ever used patents defensively. Never offensively to shut down competition or extract money for competitors. So given that the US has a broken system (as does much of the world), I'd rather a benevolent company is the only holding patents like these.
Of course Google might change one day, which is a risk, but in the mean time this is the least bad option and gives us time to try to change the system.
How does it hurt academic research? (Score:2)
What's stopping academic research on ideas covered by patents?
Re:How does it hurt academic research? (Score:4, Informative)
What's stopping academic research on ideas covered by patents?
The source of the grants/funding?
Re: (Score:2)
US only, Bayh-Dole act (Score:1)
In general, for research funded by tax money conducted at an educational institution, the government gets a free, non-exclusive "government purposes use" license to any patents coming from the research. The educational institution retains the rights for other uses, and can license them as they see fit. This is the result of the Bayh-Dole act, which was designed to encourage research into the growing field of genetic engineering, etc.
So, if you design a miracle widget, and the government thinks it would be u
Re: (Score:1)
Another interesting thing that can be done is a private company can patent a technology and give that patent to a university (with contractual stipulations, of course) which puts the university in a position to further fund themselves while allowing other companies to capitalize on the investments made at the actual point of the universities.
not quite "owned by taxpayers" (Score:1)
If it's an academic project, it's owned by the university, and the government gets to use it for free. You, as a taxpayer, do not necessarily get to use it for free. Same often applies for work funded at small businesses (and some large businesses). It depends on the contract: you could offer to develop technology for the government at a discount (or putting in some of your own money) and negotiate a partial license of rights (instead of full) in exchange for the lower cost to the government.
This has been
Re: (Score:1)
Academic research does not infringe a patent, so no problem there.
As to funding, the fund providers should realise that if the academic research results in patentable subject matter, still a major benefit can be achieved. The patent (applications) may be dependent on a Google patent, but Google isn't allowed to do what is in that dependent patent (application) too. So, this gives negotiation power and/or results in cooperation.
Bert
Academic research *can* infringe patents (Score:1)
Many people think that "academic research" or "non-profit use" doesn't infringe, but that's not true, any more than there is an exception to copyright for "non-profit use".
There's no "fair use" exception for patents, either. There is a rule that you can practice an invention if it's necessary to reduce your own invention to practice, but there's a lot of tricky aspects to that (as in "consult your attorney" tricky). Madey v. Duke is a recent case that discusses this sort of thing.
And, of course, if you do
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping academic research on ideas covered by patents?
Most AI research is moving out of academia and into industry. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. are hoovering up new PhDs, and even professors. Geoffrey Hinton [wikipedia.org] and Yoshua Bengio are working for Google. Yann LeCun [wikipedia.org] is working for Facebook. Etc. Etc. There is plenty of funding, and many great opportunities, as long as you don't mind who is paying.
Re: (Score:2)
So there is plenty of incentive to research AI concepts and building on work made public by a patent isn't going to stop that.
That's one good thing that comes from patents. Public disclosure of the ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one good thing that comes from patents. Public disclosure of the ideas.
Or, as in this case, mostly pointless obfuscation of ideas previously disclosed by other, less greedy, people.
Re: (Score:2)
Most AI research snip blabla
Nonsense, based on the usual "careful selection of evidence". Yes, A.I. has entered business in the past decade, whereas previously A.I. researchers where almost unemployable in their own field. And that's about it.
As in most other fields (except, perhaps, pharmaceutics?), practically all relevant research in the field comes from academia. Go read some actual journals in the field and take note where the authors come form.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in CS, most research in journals is hardly relevant the real world, and most of it is largely redundant with what the authors could get published in other venues. Both of those pathologies are due mostly to incentives in academia to publish or perish. Corporate researchers have incentives to describe their research and move on, not milk their one decent idea (and funding stream) until it is dry. Looking at the organizational affiliations of published papers' authors does not say much about where
Re: (Score:1)
You can moan about "publish or perish" as much as you like, the fact remains that the product of research is knowledge as it is manifested in publications and conference talks. Nothing else - proprietary products do not count as research output. If you don't understand this, then you are not a researcher. Nothing against engineering, just stating the truth.
Re: (Score:1)
What's the point of improving something if it's illegal for you to use the improvement in any meaningful way? You wouldn't even be able to get anyone else to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually worse than that. It's illegal for you to create an item that is covered by a patent whether or not you ever use it or sell it. Of course if you never use it or sell it, you can probably hide it, as long as it's only never on a device that's connected to the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless things have changed this is patently (pun intended) false information. You are able to make use of someone's patent. You can not sell it, you can not profit from it, you can not transfer it - even via gifting (AFAIK). I am not sure what would compel you to say such a thing. Now it is possible, still, to be illegally infringing on a patent even though it is private use but that does not mean that all private use cases are illegal. Consult a lawyer with expertise in the subject if you want more specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Read again the second and third paragraphs of your quoted text.
They appear, to me, to be what I was asserting.
Re: (Score:1)
You said it was illegal. It is not. It may be but it depends on the circumstances. You can not use it for anything to make a profit or give it away but you can use it and make it. Both are things you claimed were not able to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not my understanding, and it was not implied by your quoted text. What is implied is that you are unlikely to be prosecuted. Which I had already stated. (though I was a bit more paranoid, given the number of intrusions into computers).
You have not shown anything saying that non-commercial use is legal (in the US), rather than just rarely prosecuted.
AI is a cheap steak sauce. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HP Sauce is heaps better, trust me.
The real Man in the middle.... (Score:1)
Whats to stop Google from watching the competitions search queries and beating them to the punch? $TECHGIANT employee queries Google Search for PATENT $GOODIDEA, Google cleverly returns garbage and keeps him spinning in meme-hell until Google has their own PATENT PENDING on said $GOODIDEA?
This is a serious question, googles power scares the shit out of me. Anything-armsrace involving google scares me even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Bing, the uspo, academic journals, and a lot of other places. that would stop them from having any impact by returning garbage results.
As for snagging ideas. Nothing would stop that. In fact i have found the auto complete in some searches i do shows ideas i already searched for. This means that Google is already exposing ideas to others that can be taken advantage of by not just Google.
End of the World! (Score:3, Insightful)
Despair! all is lost!
These are american patents, just don't deal with america if they won't play nice.
Get rid of patents in mature fields (Score:2)
Most of them anyway. Rather find fields where a gold rush type of mentality can actually spur innovation, maybe the fields of fusion hot and cold or space transportations. Not in fields where garage or basement inventors can "make" new things. I doubt backyard rocket scientists are going to make much of difference in producing the next SSTO space vehicle (if ever that's a feasible concept).
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the system (Score:2)
What if the brain itself uses these algorithms? (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
Prior art (state of the art or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality.
Since there is no restriction on form, then you could argue that the art has been made available to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid you will just have to stop thinking.
Fortunately, this seems to be the goal of most of Google's advertisers. Just sit back and enjoy the cat videos.
For 100 points... (Score:1)
Name a case where Google has been the aggressor in a patent lawsuit.
Google learned the hard way they need to play the game, which means patenting as much as they can so they don't get sued out the wazoo.
On the plus side I can't recall a case where they've been the ones to bring suit against a party (first).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You probably need to limit your metaphors a bit more strictly.
Reasoning by analogy, "Everybody should have nukes" is a truly terrible idea. Any one suicidal lunatic could destroy everyone. Therefore there should be no patents.
I feel this is an extreme position that is invalid. There are carefully delineated areas where patents actually serve a worthwhile purpose. They last too long, and they are too easy to abuse, but if there is a large up front cost inherent in making an invention, then patents are ju
Re:For 100 points... (Score:5, Informative)
"Google has a gun pointed at my head. They haven't promised not to pull the trigger, but they haven't pull the trigger yet. So I've got that going for me." -- AI software developer
Request for prior art on Google patent application. [stackexchange.com] Don't let Google point a gun at our heads. Get their patent applications rejected with prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that viewpoint is that under the current broken patent system, every unassigned AI patent is a gun sitting on a mount pointed at your head waiting for anyone willing to pay $10,000 (approx cost of a patent application) to take possession of it. It is much better
Re: (Score:2)
It is much better to have a company which promises not to pull the trigger take possession of it, rather than leave it unattended for some sue-happy patent troll to get their hands on it.
Are those promises legally binding? If Google sold the patents, would new patent holders be legally bound to uphold those promises? I'm guessing the answers to both are no. I'm not so sure that tomorrow's Google will have the same intentions as today's Google. All it takes is a bit of revenue pressure, or hell, just a small change in management.
Doesn't surprise me one bit. (Score:3)
I'd go so far as to predict the self driving car will turn into AI because I posted it on another forum, but I post so much on forums, its hard to back track and point at references.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from SCO, RightsCorp, Righthaven, Lodsys, and other organizations that have built up "troll" reputations in certain circles, I can think of One Rich American Called Larry Ellison.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from SCO, RightsCorp, Righthaven, Lodsys, and other organizations that have built up "troll" reputations in certain circles, I can think of One Rich American Called Larry Ellison.
And that's just in computing. If you want to go up a league in EVIL, take a look at Cargill, Monsanto or any major oil company. Their list of sins are large and not debatable. If you go even further, take a look at international financial institutions like UBS or HSBC. And that's before we get into politicians, dictatorships, and the good ol' CIA (who was Oracle's #1 customer, now that I think of it).
Yeah, If Google's on the list of EVIL they've either got a long way to go, or have been completely stea
Stop the Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
It is way past time to end all patents.
Ideas are a dime a dozen.
I have ten before breakfast and at least one is great.
I invent things. I don't patent it, I implement.
Time to end all patents.
Re: (Score:3)
It is way past time to end all patents. Ideas are a dime a dozen. I have ten before breakfast and at least one is great. I invent things. I don't patent it, I implement. Time to end all patents.
I agree with your sentiment, but saying we should end all patents is like asking for people to stop fighting wars. Just not going to happen. The problem with taking it as a position is that it is easy to attack. For example, there is a robust argument for why some pharmaceuticals need to have protections to make them economic to develop. If you go into a debate wanting to stop patents, the opposition just wheels out some kid who got cured from cancer due to a drug that cost billions to develop and your get
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent idea. People should stop fighting wars too.
Don't confuse "America" with "the United States" with "the USA citizens". The laws are pushed by lobbyists for corporations who benefit. Surely you've figured that out by now. The odds of a quiet revolution are nearly zero.
It is a Brave New World where 1984 came to pass and We all simply accepeted it without any revolution.
F* them (Score:1)
Google is gradually becoming the master of evil
Intent is important (Score:1)
If the application will be rejected, Google has done everyone a favour as nobody else will have a chance to patent this. If a significant part of your technology depends on this algorithm then it seems like a very reasonable behaviour. Obviously, that does not mean that they cannot turn at some point into another Oracle, but this news alone is not enough to prove this.
How fascinating... (Score:2)
... to reflect that the danger of a patent lawsuit might be alleviated if the AI you build as a result is smart enough to get you off the patent lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
You actually bring up a pretty interesting point. Most legal arguments are not amazingly intelligent, they simply involve finding logic loopholes using obscure case law. Even legal strategies are reasonably well defined, with most litigators just working to a book in terms of the various ways you can attack a case if you can't win on merit. Given that it is largely a process of reviewing as much case law as possible to find arguments and then weighing probabilities of success against possible defence strate
Fourier (Score:1)
Prior Art (Score:2)
...no need to say more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]