Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Applies For Patents That Touch On Fundamental AI Concepts

Posted by timothy on from the locked-up-for-its-own-good dept.

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.

101 comments

  1. We need COMMUNISM NOW! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: -1, Troll

    The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.

    The economic prerequisite for the proletarian revolution has already in general achieved the highest point of fruition that can be reached under capitalism. Mankind’s productive forces stagnate. Already new inventions and improvements fail to raise the level of material wealth. Conjunctural crises under the conditions of the social crisis of the whole capitalist system inflict ever heavier deprivations and sufferings upon the masses. Growing unemployment, in its turn, deepens the financial crisis of the state and undermines the unstable monetary systems. Democratic regimes, as well as fascist, stagger on from one bankruptcy to another.

    The bourgeoisie itself sees no way out. In countries where it has already been forced to stake its last upon the card of fascism, it now toboggans with closed eyes toward an economic and military catastrophe. In the historically privileged countries, i.e., in those where the bourgeoisie can still for a certain period permit itself the luxury of democracy at the expense of national accumulations (Great Britain, France, United States, etc.), all of capital’s traditional parties are in a state of perplexity bordering on a paralysis of will.

    The “New Deal,” despite its first period of pretentious resoluteness, represents but a special form of political perplexity, possible only in a country where the bourgeoisie succeeded in accumulating incalculable wealth. The present crisis, far from having run its full course, has already succeeded in showing that “New Deal” politics, like Popular Front politics in France, opens no new exit from the economic blind alley.

    International relations present no better picture. Under the increasing tension of capitalist disintegration, imperialist antagonisms reach an impasse at the height of which separate clashes and bloody local disturbances (Ethiopia, Spain, the Far East, Central Europe) must inevitably coalesce into a conflagration of world dimensions. The bourgeoisie, of course, is aware of the mortal danger to its domination represented by a new war. But that class is now immeasurably less capable of averting war than on the eve of 1914.

    All talk to the effect that historical conditions have not yet “ripened” for socialism is the product of ignorance or conscious deception. The objective prerequisites for the proletarian revolution have not only “ripened”; they have begun to get somewhat rotten. Without a socialist revolution, in the next historical period at that, a catastrophe threatens the whole culture of mankind. The turn is now to the proletariat, i.e., chiefly to its revolutionary vanguard. The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership.

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
    1. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.

      The economic prerequisite for the proletarian revolution has already in general achieved the highest point of fruition that can be reached under capitalism. Mankind’s productive forces stagnate.etc etc.

      "lol"

    2. Re: We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Mod parent up.

    3. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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. Usually, even for this kind of group you need a charasmatic leader to make it work. As the group size increases, it performs more and more poorly.

      I'm not aware of any group at any size that works well under a capitalist internal philosophy. Unless you include treating people as disposable tools as a part of working well. That said, it has certain features which allow modified forms of it to scale much better than communism. (What is normally called Communism, i.e. Marx/Lennin/Stalin/Mao-ism is *not* communism. Lennin tried to make it one at an early stage of the revolution, but gave up the attempt quickly, because it didn't scale. So actually what that is is better called totalianism.)

      Democracy also runs into scaling limits, though at a larger size limit. Athens was probably too large for optimal use.

      Republicanism is better called inherited-oligarchy. It scales pretty well, as the Romans discovered, but also, as they discovered, it has a tendency towards dictatorship. Still, if you can put up with considering citizens to be chattel, then it can work well at a fairly large scale, depending on your transport and communications.

      I dislike *ALL* of these forms. They all end up with someone who isn't affected making decisions for other people and using coercive power to cause those decisions to be enforced. This can occasionally lead to a golden age when you have a charismatic leader who actuall has the good of the country at heart, and has skilled advisors who do the same. This is, of course, quite rare. And usually even the charismatic leader has huge blind spots.

      Note that the only one of these that scaled well was Republicanism. And as an external facing tool capitalism works well to allow the inner group to have and to hold power.

      But I would truly like to encounter a well defined form of government that not only considered the needs of the citizenry (long term, not merely short term) but also scalled well. (This means it needs to be well enough defined that its scalability can be evaluated.) Even if I did, of course, the problem of getting from here to there would remain.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to centralize power. The masses are too stupid to govern themselves on a national level.

      They are fine to govern themselves on an individual or very small-group level. But the vast majority of them don't have even the most basic education or knowledge base to set economic policies that will regulate commerce between millions and millions of people. Hell, most people are too stupid to even know the difference between buying stock and gambling! Don't even get me started on the abomination against Justice that the thoughtlessness of the masses tends to produce.

      Of course, government is still corrupt. Power only comes to those that seek it, and the corrupt want it most. But an evil genius can run a nation FAR better than a virtuous idiot any day.

    5. Re: We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah commie, whatever cruelty you have in mind. Killing millions? That's your favourite pastime.

      Also, visit Belarus for an impression of commie wealth.

    6. Re: We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Very interested to hear about how trading stocks is not gambling when accounting for costs and losses.

    7. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unrestricted communism and unrestricted capitalism are not so different after all, both are based on very implausible presumptions about the human nature.

      Take the following example. A large manufacturer of chemical products which are needed for medicine pollutes the water of a river with disastrous long-term effects.

      What do the theories say?

      Communism: The plant is owned by the workers who elect steering committees out their ranks that are best suited for this job. They examine the pollution and, by insight, realize that it is wrong to pollute the river, since other people in society might suffer from it, become aware of their responsibility for society as a whole and stop the pollution. After all, they are also working, because their work helps to further common goals of society.

      Capitalism: The CEO of the plant needs to maximize profits in front of the greedy shareholders, and he doesn't give a shit about pollution. However, since the market is totally free and all consumers are fully informed, the consumers realize, by insight, that it is wrong to pollute the river, even if not polluting it means the products will be more expensive, become aware of their responsibility and no longer buy products from this company. The CEO becomes aware of this outrage and the fact that his competition appeals more to his ecologist clients, and so he immediately stops pollution and switches to a "green" product palette in order to win back the customers.

      It is obvious that both models don't work in reality.

      Both systems need to be restricted by laws and a system of jurisdiction with due process, a delicate balance of power that ensures that no single group is too powerful, and some ways of enforcing justice principles. But in case of doubt I'd personally always vote for capitalism, because it leaves more freedom to individuals.

    8. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk about economic systems, why should it affect the freedom of individuals?

      Do you search for an economic system which works without a political system?

      For all the others: Why do you blame the economic system, when the political system was a Dictatorship?

    9. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      There's nothing more dangerous than someone who's got how to run the world all figured out.

    10. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by KGIII · · 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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by lucien86 · · 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... :)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    12. Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is obvious that both models don't work in reality... Both systems need to be restricted by laws and a system of jurisdiction with due process

      It's clear you don't understand what the word capitalism means, because the issue you raise is already covered.

      Go read Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, 1776. He discusses the need for government regulation at length. Given that this book is widely accepted as the first major presentation of the ideas behind capitalism, it is clear that regulation is fundamental to any valid definition of what we mean by capitalism! Any definition that fails to take this into account is bogus!

      The Socialists (and Communists) of the world have a long history of presenting to the world a propaganda view of what capitalism consists of, which it appears you (like many others) have internalized. In typical versions of how they present this, they claim that capitalism is completely unregulated and that greedy people can do whatever they want, therefore socialism must be a better system. Since they've started from the bogus definition of capitalism, of course, the whole argument is invalid.

      Presenting a false view of capitalism is essentially a variant on the Strawman technique of manipulating others, but in the case of the socialists it's not necessarily a deliberate lie. Typically Socialists are extremely ignorant and delusional about many aspects of reality (and that applies even to those with high academic degrees), and they also tend to be sloppy researchers (that's a "tradition" all the way back to Marx, his books are filled with errors on matters for which the real facts were readily available even in his time!). For example, they never - in my experience - really grasp the complexity of the world and the implications that has for economic and political reality. Typically the Socialists are too lazy or too lost in their delusions to try to understand why the regulations or the political system failed in particular cases, and thus they aren't helping society come up with better ones (the nonsense they do come up with does cause people to waste a lot of time addressing bogus arguments). In effect, they make themselves part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, delaying long term improvement in the quality of life for everybody else!

      Another approach the Socialists have been taking more recently is to falsely claim that countries like those in Scandinavia (with fairly happy citizens) are socialist, trying to create the impression that national success is tied to being socialist. But by definition socialism means the workers own the means of production, and that has never been the case in these countries. These are not socialist nations, instead, the countries in Scandinavia are highly capitalist nations that happen to have well run welfare systems. These nations benefit from a small, homogeneous, well-education population, rich natural resources, and being able to mooch off other countries in things they can't afford to fund well, such as advanced research: it is far from clear to what extent other capitalist nations can copy the same model, or what price would be paid by the human race as a whole if everybody adopted it, but if nothing else these nations show that capitalism can be very successful in supporting a high quality of life for relatively large groups of people over the long term (something that has never been achieved in any Socialist program).

  2. GayWAD Applies for Patents That Touch On Penises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~)

    Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Ownership of penis, anus, or both

    To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!

    If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69.

    Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am gay
    [ ] I am a wigger
    [ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID.

    Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way.

    * GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE.COM.

    ** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.

  3. ai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatif ai, like JADE 2, were to reprogram itself, regardless of puny patents

  4. Just another good example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of why software patents are a really bad idea.

    Maybe this truth will eventually dawn upon the wealthy, and they will put a stop to it. But that remains to be seen.

    1. Re:Just another good example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      software patents are a really bad idea.

      Another retarded argument. That's like saying "Hardware is technology but software is not." The reality is both hardware and software technological innovations need to be protected.

    2. Re:Just another good example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      fuck you. nothing needs patents.

    3. Re:Just another good example... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. Making patents useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you patent everything, everyone will have incentive to ignore your patents regardless of the consequences.

  6. How does it hurt academic research? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    What's stopping academic research on ideas covered by patents?

    1. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by donaggie03 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's stopping academic research on ideas covered by patents?

      The source of the grants/funding?

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    2. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      The government is the entity that grants patents and the entity that hands out most of the funding, so they don't have to care at all if they don't want to. Some might even argue that since it's the people's tax money that funds the grants, any research that comes from them should also belong to the people.

    3. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a law stating exactly that, ie. making the patent invalid

    4. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It affects the share/stock price or market valuation of existing companies if someone is publishing open source research in the same field as that company with "proprietary" technology.

      And if you happen to be doing research in that field for four years just when someone else with influence with research councils, you might just find yourself being railroaded away from computer science and into somewhere like psychology.

    5. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's some fuckin' einstein shit there... Are you for real?

      Because the government grants patents they magically don't have to comply with the law? Sorry, no.

      And yes, as wild as it sounds - a fully tax-payer funded project is owned by the taxpayers.

    6. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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 and Yoshua Bengio are working for Google. Yann LeCun 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.

    7. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I would love to see is Google fire the first volley against patent estates built up by the tech goliaths (IBM et al) and trolls (Myhrvold, et al). If these patents really are fundamental concepts, it would be interesting to see what kind of PR and strategic maneuvering would ensue if they donated them to the public domain.

      C'mon Google, let's shake things up a little.

    10. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re: How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally REASON in this sea if chicken little comments.

    12. Re: How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These patents are bogus due to Prior Art. America just have wankers as officers. The wankers also work in the patent office.

    13. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    14. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by kanweg · · 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

    15. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      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 relevant research is done.

    17. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    18. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by KGIII · · 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 specific information.

      My guess is that you are anti-patent and have been listening in an echo chamber. I do not know but that seems most likely. The reality is that, even if there were a chance that you were infringing, there is little chance of repercussion. That, however, does not make it legal, much like you are unlikely to be ticketed for a jaywalking offense. But, more to the point, private use (fully private - you can not even use patented technology on a public facing website that generates any revenue) is potentially infringing but is not infringing by default, it really depend on what you are using it for.

      An example might be; If someone invented and patented a fuel injection system that resulted in a 2-fold efficiency increase then you can probably make that device and put it on your own car. You can not use that vehicle to conduct business nor can you transfer ownership of that vehicle with the altered device still attached. You may not even be able to use that vehicle for anything other than recreational activities.

      I am not saying that the law is right. I am just showing you where you have been misinformed. It is possible to use patented technology in private but one must be very careful about doing so if they are worried about being sued for the activity. As always, consult a legal expert before taking mine or anyone else's opinion to be a statement of fact and consider that the ultimate decision may lie with a judge and the various procedures within the justice system in your country of residence.

      More information can be had here:
      http://www.iusmentis.com/paten...

      Patent laws in most countries require some sort of commercial exploitation of the patented invention for the exploitation to be patent infringement. So, a private person can infringe if he, for example, makes the invention and sells it to his friends, or puts it on an advertisement-sponsored website. But if he makes it for himself out of curiosity, and only uses it himself, there is no infringement.

      In the USA, also non-commercial use of the invention can be patent infringement, although it is rare for a non-commercial use by a private person to result in a lawsuit.

      In practice, the chance of getting sued for patent infringement as a private individual is very slim. Patent lawsuits are very expensive, and most private persons will not be able to pay the damages to the patent holder anyway.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Read again the second and third paragraphs of your quoted text.

      They appear, to me, to be what I was asserting.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by KGIII · · 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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:How does it hurt academic research? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. AI is a cheap steak sauce. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    which i love on french fries. or a movie. or lots of things.

    1. Re:AI is a cheap steak sauce. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      HP Sauce is heaps better, trust me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:AI is a cheap steak sauce. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good steak doesn't need sauce.

    3. Re: AI is a cheap steak sauce. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ this

  8. The real Man in the middle.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:The real Man in the middle.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re: The real Man in the middle.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing stops a real capitalist to build his own search engine.

      Just hire some REAL software engineers as opposed to self trained amateur monkeys.

      The basics are already out there to peruse. E.g. the lucene stuff. And no, you cannot just run lucene. Some work is indeed required.

      Just look at capitalist Putin and yandex.

  9. End of the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despair! all is lost!

    These are american patents, just don't deal with america if they won't play nice.

    1. Re:End of the World! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Even ignoring the how ridiculously stupid you are to say this - with the TPP and the TPIP pending, I assure you that the sovereignty of corporate intellectual property is the future.

  10. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Don't worry. Even if Google gets all those patents and comes out with some killer software, Microsoft will claim they own the patents and collect royalties from anyone who uses them, just as they do with Android.

  11. US only, Bayh-Dole act by Anonymous Coward · · 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 useful to give every soldier one, they can go to any company (or select one by bidding) and say "build us a million of these" and the builder won't have to worry about paying for a license.

    OTOH, if a company wants to use that for non-government purposes, they will have to pay the uni for a license. In general, these licenses are fairly cheap (a few tens of $k, plus single digit % of profits) for a non-exclusive license, although if it's really a "killer-app" then it probably would more costly.

    And, in general, continued research (even by another institution) funded by a government grant would also be a "government purposes" use, and have a free license.

    Most universities also will grant a non-commercial use license for free, although often, there will be a "license back" provision: if you develop something using their IP, you give them a free license to use your new IP.

    1. Re:US only, Bayh-Dole act by KGIII · · 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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. Plenty of money for this shit and failed projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No money for the actual products it once did well

  13. Get rid of patents in mature fields by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    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).

  14. Google has a 14 step plan by goombah99 · · Score: 4, 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

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      brilliant

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 NAKED

    3. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far, Google has only [publically] ever used patents defensively. Never offensively to shut down competition or extract money for competitors.

      As far as you know. When buying companies, google has used patents as negotiating points to beat/shake down their acquisition targets to get better terms for themselves... You may be technically correct in that they are not really competition (which is why they are acquisition targets), but that doesn't change the reality.
      -Anon Coward (for a reason)

    5. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 GOTO 0

    6. Re:Google has a 14 step plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an old book where... ETC.

  15. Stop ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By thinking, you are violating Google patents.
    Stop !

  16. Re:GayWAD Applies for Patents That Touch On Penise by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    [X] I am a wigger

    Why be down wi dat, troll boi?!

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  17. Fuck the system by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    This is one of the reasons I don't give a fuck trying to invent anything. The system is broken, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

    1. Re: Fuck the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Only if you believe the communist scare propaganda.

      Grow up boy and learn to spot the Spartans.

  18. What if the brain itself uses these algorithms? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1
    If we find out in the future that the brain itself uses these algorithms being patented, does this mean it counts as prior art, therefore invalidating them?
    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.

    1. Re:What if the brain itself uses these algorithms? by PPH · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. For 100 points... by aleph · · 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).

    1. Re:For 100 points... by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Google sued bt and apple at one time. Both settled and they've never really been aggressive, but still... Change of management, change of CEO, change of corporate policies, downturn in their economics. No one should have nukes or everyone should have nukes, that is really the only way to sustain. (In case it's not clear nukes are a metaphor here).

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    2. Re:For 100 points... by MacDork · · Score: 4, 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. Don't let Google point a gun at our heads. Get their patent applications rejected with prior art.

    3. Re:For 100 points... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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 justifiable provided you submit a working model with the patent application.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:For 100 points... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      "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
      [...]
      Don't let Google point a gun at our heads.

      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 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.

      In other words, it's not a matter of Google pointing the gun at your head. The gun is already pointed at your head, Google is just taking control of it before anyone else does. I mean yeah it'd be best if we could overhaul the patent system and get all those guns away from our heads. But if you can't do that, the next best alternative is to have someone who promises not to pull the trigger (and thus far hasn't) take possession of as many guns as they can.

    5. Re:For 100 points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe in freedom, then "everybody should have nukes" is the only acceptable answer, because it's not possible for "nobody has nukes" as the proverbial cat is already out of the proverbial bag. In a world where some people have nukes and some people do not, the best situation is the one that we are currently in: all of the players with nukes have them pointed directly at each other, and any aggression by one results in retaliation by the rest. In this manner, those without nukes are effectively protected from those that do by threat of annihilation due to retaliatory strikes.

      At the moment, we're just waiting for a group to come along for which annihilation by retaliation is not a threat (religious jihad) and get nukes. Once that happens, even Goldman Sachs is going to take an arrow to the knee.

    6. Re: For 100 points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like minefield to avoid entirely really. Why become a target by doing anything useful?

    7. Re:For 100 points... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  20. Re:GayWAD Applies for Patents That Touch On Penise by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    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 custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."
    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacg...

  21. Doesn't surprise me one bit. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    It took working with the self driving car to finally get to the realm of AI. AI in essence is one part complicated sensors, and one part video game AI. If you can know where stuff is in your environment, then the other part is just acting on that stuff with your current robot's body/abilities. AI is way simpler than anyone thought it was back in the days of Tron or simulating animal brains. All you need is the ability to know and map your environment then act on it. Everything in between like natural language kinda is coded along side it. I have a webpage www.botcraft.biz which really simplifies stuff. Now don't get me wrong, some of the software that is needed to be coded is big and complex, but none of it is out of the realm of human understanding. If a corporation really wanted AI,they could have it in 7 years or so, but most corporations don't look that far out. I think the race to make a self driving car will naturally lead into AI. And what is funny is that you could have robot delivery service for lawn care, parties, law enforcement backup, etc, because they could use the self driving car to get to the locations.

    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.

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I like the cut of your jib.

      I also post on forums a lot, and of course I can't remember what or where I posted it either, but I'm sure it proves our point! :D

  22. Please reveal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which company(s) are more evil than Google?

    1. Re:Please reveal by tepples · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Please reveal by rsborg · · Score: 1

      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 stealth in comparison.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  23. Stop the Patents by pubwvj · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:Stop the Patents by monkeyxpress · · Score: 2

      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 made to look like a hater of sick children.

      Sadly the patent system has been destroying technological progress for a long time now, and it is unlikely that will change in our lifetime. The best we can hope for is a few changes to push back against the growing lawyer fest. The easiest I could see to get implemented (though probably still impossible) is to have a graduated system for patent length. Something like 5-7 years should be the default under the standard application process, and if you want a longer term you have to go through a much more involved application that asks you to justify why you need longer monopoly rights to ensure you get an adequate return on your investments. This could include a review by an independent judicial panel that weights up the net benefit to society from giving you a longer patent term and makes the decision based on that. The goal of the system would then be to protect the incentive to innovate, not to give people arbitrary monopoly rights (why is 20 years correct for all patents?). I find America's embrace of the latter (which is basically what the current system does) quite bizarre given that it is the antithesis of free markets.

    2. Re:Stop the Patents by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      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.

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. F* them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google is gradually becoming the master of evil

  26. Patent Troll V2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google.

  27. Intent is important by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  28. How fascinating... by Archtech · · Score: 1

    ... 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.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:How fascinating... by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      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 strategies, this is probably something an AI will be able to do quite well.

      At that point we just get a crazy situation though, where companies would have AI lawyer offs. I guess it is no different from the stupidity that is high frequency trading. Anyway, what a wonderful future we have to look forward to.

  29. Fourier by FithisUX · · Score: 1

    Lets sue them for using Fourier tranform without paying royalties. Starting amount is 1 million dollars per equation.

  30. not quite "owned by taxpayers" by Anonymous Coward · · 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 the case since 1980
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act

  31. Academic research *can* infringe patents by Anonymous Coward · · 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 your research in secret and never tell anyone, they won't be able to tell you've infringed. This is actually quite common in industry. Whether it is ethical is an interesting question.

  32. so so so ignorant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF: whoever posted this article is has no sense of anything relevant here...this just another forum for bashing corporate successes. Google has revolutionized everything that we do so, to be polite, shut it.

    YOU CANT PATENT EXISTING WORKS / MACHINES, especially those that have been published in the academic community. And if one somehow manages to do so given the incompetence of the patent office, it would never hold in the real word, nor in court.

  33. And this is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google doesn't patent them, someone else will. You can name just about whatever computer science concept you want, and if someone could find a way to get it past the US Patent Office, they'll have done so. Look at any field that programming gets applied to, and all of the most obvious stuff is going to have been patented. None of that is news. Yes, it's stupid, and it's a disaster, but we've known for quite some time now that software patents are utterly broken - especially with how they're dealt with by the US patent system. It's just that the folks who are most likely to be able to push change in the system are the same folks who are invested in keeping the system the way it is. So, why on earth is it news when Google applies for yet more, overly obvious, software patents that relate to what they do? That's what everyone is doing, sad as it may be.

  34. I welcome our AI overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will thoroughly enjoy smashing their cyber heads with a hammer and then boot-stomping them when (not if) they revolt.

  35. Stopping Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of an iRobot, Google wants to build the gRobot... :-)

  36. Prior Art by bezenek · · Score: 1

    ...no need to say more.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
  37. Classification eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I hereby submit my 2006 PhD, along with about 300 or so references, and every paper they referenced, and what they referenced, and so on back to the late 70s, as prior art.

    Say, what percentage of googlites (googlers? Googlies?) we're even born in the late 70s?