
DeepMind: First major AI patent filings revealed - DrHughes
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/06/deepmind-first-major-ai-patent-filings.html
======
cs702
This could be... potentially _disastrous for innovation_.

Patented work includes:

* 2018/048934, "Generating Audio using neural networks", Priority date: 6 Sep 2016

* 2018/048945, "Processing sequences using convolutional neural networks", Priority date: 6 Sep 2016

* 2018064591, "Generating video frames using neural networks", Priority date: 6 Sep 2016

* 2018071392, "Neural networks for selecting actions to be performed by a robotic agent", Priority date: 10 Oct 2016

* 2018/081089, "Processing text sequences using neural networks", Priority date: 26 Oct 2016

* 2018/083532, "Training action selection using neural networks", Priority date: 3 Nov 2016

* 2018/083667, "Reinforcement learning systems", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

* 2018/083668, "Scene understanding and generation using neural networks", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

* 2018/083669, "Recurrent neural networks", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

* 2018083670, "Sequence transduction neural networks", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

* 2018083671, "Reinforcement learning with auxiliary tasks", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

* 2018/083672, "Environment navigation using reinforcement learning", Priority date: 4 Nov 2016

...

Is there anyone from DeepMind on HN who could comment on this?

~~~
halflings
Can't remember a single time Google sued people for patent infringement except
for that one time against BT [0] (which was retaliatory anyway).

These are purely defensive patents because they know that other companies will
be more than happy to sue them for patent infringement.

DeepMind (+ other research organizations at Google) are among the biggest
publishers of AI papers + open-source AI code.

[0]
[https://www.ft.com/content/ea436a88-762a-11e2-8eb6-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/ea436a88-762a-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0)

~~~
marcosdumay
How many times did Google threaten small companies under seal with its patent
portifolio?

If you don't know this number, the one you pointed out is basically useless.

~~~
ehsankia
Do you know that number? I have yet to hear a single instance or even rumor of
that happening. Your post is the first time I've even seen it mentioned. Do
you have any proof to back it up? When you make bold claims like that, I think
the onus is on you to back it up.

------
yodon
By way of comparison, Microsoft is the single largest funder of academic CS
research in the world, significantly larger than the NSF or US government, and
unlike competing companies like Google and Apple they encourage academic
researchers to publish papers on the work they fund to the point where if you
don’t publish your work you don’t get more funding from them. Microsoft also
doesn’t file patents on the academic research they fund.

But we all know Microsoft is the one that’s evil, because they bought GitHub
unlike Google which is merely trying to stifle all use of and research in the
most important arena in CS.

~~~
haeffin
Why do you think Google doesn't encourage publishing papers? Google has a very
big amount of papers they publish ... as an example,
[https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/google-at-
nips-2017.html](https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/google-at-nips-2017.html)

~~~
yodon
Nearly all the authors in that list are google employees, not independent
academic researchers.

That blog post is about Google’s employees publishing papers on work google
owns, the same sort of work that google is attempting to secure patents on.
This is very different from supporting independent academic research.

~~~
haeffin
Supporting independent academic research like
[https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-
aw...](https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-
awards-2017.html)?

~~~
yodon
Everything I’ve heard from academics is that the terms that come with funding
from Microsoft are much better and more flexible for the academic than the
terms that come with funding from Google, and there is certainly a great deal
more funding available to academics from Microsoft than Google.

That said, given that my point was about the absurdity in difference in
responses to Microsoft’s actions and Google’s actions, I’m particularly
amused(?) that here we are, in a page about Google applying for patents that
would cover a tremendous amount of essential CS research, and the primary
thrust of your points here seems to be “Dude! Google’s Awesome! They’re so
supportive of research!” which is pretty much exactly the response I was
trying to highlight. Don’t be evil was a wonderful way to start their
branding. It doesn’t matter that’s not the company they are anymore, it’s
still how people think of them.

~~~
doctorsher
You are trying to frame people's responses into a "Google good, Microsoft bad"
response, and I do not think that is fair to them at all. They are disagreeing
with your idea that Google is non-existent on the academic research front, and
Microsoft is doing way more than them. And frankly, as someone in academia,
this does not pass my smell test either.

~~~
yodon
I’m baffled where you get the idea that I think google is non-existent on the
academic front. Yes, Apple is not-existent, but that’s certainly not something
I believe or would say about google, because it’s not the case. I did say
Microsoft is the #1 funder of academic research in the world, which I believe
is still true and which no one seems to be challenging [edit: it looks like
there is some discussion of whether Microsoft’s funding is bigger or smaller
than the government’s contribution, but all within a context of Microsoft
certainly being the biggest NGO funding source and possibly being the biggest
overall]

Again, I think it’s fascinating how in commenting on a post about google
trying to file patents that would completely control the most important new
field in CS, someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding
academic researchers is branded as calling Google “non-existent on the
academic front”.

This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN
software is designed to discourage and punish, so I’m going to try to back off
here and say hopefully we can agree to disagree, particularly since it doesn’t
sound to me like we actually disagree.

~~~
doctorsher
I admit that I exaggerated with my wording that you think Google is non-
existent on the academic front. It's unfortunate that your response focuses
almost entirely on this one aspect, and not the message my post attempted to
convey.

> _someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic
> researchers_

This type of wording is unnecessary. You are declaring that you are correct,
while at the same time not providing supporting evidence when requested.

> _This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the
> HN software is designed to discourage and punish_

Welp. I am sorry this had such a negative effect on you. We can certainly
agree to disagree. Cheers.

------
eat_veggies
This is so disappointing. DeepMind deserves to make money off their research--
they really are doing amazing stuff--but I feel like these patents will
completely stifle any AI research outside of Google if they go through.

"Processing {text, video, audio, images} using neural networks" and
fundamental concepts like reinforcement learning or RNNs shouldn't be
patentable :/

~~~
pishpash
They're just titles. The patentable claims are obviously more narrowly
constrained.

~~~
eat_veggies
"Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a
computer storage medium, for environment simulation. In one aspect, a system
comprises a recurrent neural network configured to, at each of a plurality of
time steps, receive a preceding action for a preceding time step, update a
preceding initial hidden state of the recurrent neural network from the
preceding time step using the preceding action, update a preceding cell state
of the recurrent neural network from the preceding time step using at least
the initial hidden state for the time step, and determine a final hidden state
for the time step using the cell state for the time step. The system further
comprises a decoder neural network configured to receive the final hidden
state for the time step and process the final hidden state to generate a
predicted observation characterizing a predicted state of the environment at
the time step."

From "Recurrent Neural Networks" patent. This doesn't sound narrowly
constrained to me. This just sounds like a RNN, which according to wikipedia,
were conceived in 1982.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_neural_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_neural_network)

~~~
patentatt
That is the abstract of an application--it does not define the protection of a
patent. It is intended to aide someone browsing patents to determine if this
document may be something worth looking into closer, it is supposed to be
quite broad and vague.

------
zackmorris
Since AI is the last great problem in computer science, I can't help but feel
a tremendous sense of sadness and foreboding about this. I always wanted to
dabble in AI in that far off mythical future when I have the time to do so.
But if it all gets patented, what's the point? Might as well patent
relativity, or quantum mechanics.

~~~
therealtomsmith
I love when people say "dabble in ai". The mathematical foundation to even
begin truly understanding ai isn't something you can dabble your way through.
- so am i being downvoted because im wrong or because i hurt your feelings?
jesus fucking christ.

~~~
gimmeThaBeet
Probably it reads like textbook gatekeeping and doesn't add much to the
discussion.

Granted this doesn't really either, but I'd rather people be interested in
learning something rather than just be intimidated because they can't "really"
learn anything about AI. That's just plain mean-spirited.

------
sarabande
How are methods like these patentable when the research in these domains has
been openly published and built upon by the community already? For example,
the "Generating audio using NNs" patent abstract is:

    
    
        Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, 
        for generating an output sequence of audio data that comprises a respective audio 
        sample at each of a plurality of time steps. [...]
    

... which seems really broad.

~~~
BillyWM
"when the research in these domains has been openly published and built upon
by the community already"

Well, mega-corps like Google lobbied for a first-to-file system (America
Invents), for one thing. Community shmunity; whoever has the most resources to
file the most applications wins.

~~~
webmaven
FTFY:

 _> whoever has the most resources to file the most applications _soonest
_wins._

------
eat_veggies
China has a history of not giving a shit about US patents. Will this shift AI
research to the East?

~~~
kfinley
Google announced, in December, that it would be opening an artificial
intelligence centre in China.

1:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42334583](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42334583)

------
alexbeloi
Somebody at Alphabet or DeepMind decided that the research they produce wasn't
tangible enough to justify their cost, so they have to demonstrate 'real
business value' of their research. For bottom line business people, this means
patents.

This is just speculation on my part, but from my experience, this is how/why
this happens in a large org.

~~~
kyrra
Most big companies reward people for suggesting parents to file.

[https://www.quora.com/How-do-big-companies-reward-their-
empl...](https://www.quora.com/How-do-big-companies-reward-their-employees-
for-patents)

------
a-dub
2018/122456 "Utilizing sample data to train algorithms for pattern recognition
and generation"

------
RobertoG
Is this enforceable in the European Union?

My understanding was that we (the people) won the battle about software
patents.

~~~
patentatt
These are not enforceable anywhere -- they are applications. If and when they
issue into patents, those will be enforceable in their respective territories.
A PCT filing such as these, however, can go national stage in any of the PCT
countries, which includes pretty much the whole world.[1]

[1]
[http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html](http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html)

~~~
mbowcutt
What makes you so sure they'll be granted?

(From a US perspective) The disclosures I've flipped through reek of non-
patentable subject matter (software/algorithms with no defined field of use),
lack a strong inventive step (ok I'm not so sure but it seems like a lot of
these are already being researched/used), and have a claims list that is LONG.

It only takes one claim to not be met for a product to not fall under that
patent. So if the exact processes described in the claims are not followed or
even altered, the offending party could see DeepMind in court (where they
would, unfortunately, likely lose).

------
eggy
These were all filed in 0.02 seconds by Author: Deepmind. AI has learned
patent trolling ;)

------
bvc35
Relevant: [https://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/snLplqq.jpg)

------
Nokinside
For a small(ish) company good alternative to patents is trade secret. If you
really invent something valuable, never publish it.

Companies like MS, Google, Amazon can justify free academic research because
they have infrastructure that uses the research. They don't make their profits
directly from the research.

Deep Mind can only get value from fundamental research using patents or trade
secrets. Being just a consulting gig company does not generate enough profits
to justify basic research.

Its the same in electronics I'm more familiar with. Small design company can
from IP licensing, but if you want to keep working with some fundamental
research that does not fall under a copyright, you must choose between patent
or trade secret to benefit from the research.

------
jl2718
I’m very concerned to hear that Demmis Hassabis is a genus. I knew he was
smart, and I was prepared to accept that he may be a different species, but I
was hoping that he would maintain at least some backward compatibility with
the primates.

------
timdellinger
One of the biggest issues with enforcing patents is "how do I recognize (and
then later prove in court) that my competition is infringing on my patent?

Since you can't easily just go have a peek your competitor's code, it's going
to be a challenge to come up with an enforcement strategy.

~~~
droidist2
Could they subpoena their code?

------
ajnin
"Using neural networks" is the new "on a computer"

------
nightcracker
Google points a gun at everyone's head.

"But this is defensive!", an astroturfer claims.

Google won't shoot you. But she could. She won't. But she could. She might.
Maybe.

------
jacksmith21006
These are defensive patents. Google entire culture is different than say
Microsoft.

Google believe in all ships rising also helps them. Versus lowering
competitors ships helps them which is the Microsoft and other old tech
companies approach.

That is why they buy up patents like what they did with Motorola but use for
cross licensing NOT to collect royalties. We look at Android and Microsoft
collects patent royalties such as they get more per Android device than
Google. That is just the difference in cultures.

Google even lets one of their chief competitors, Amazon, use Android without
any fees paid to them. Amazon turns around and uses for the Echo, Dot FireTV
and majority of their other hardware and then bans everyone on their
marketplace from being allowed to sell competing Google products.

Not just Amazon will NOT sell but bans every other company on their market
place from being allowed to sell.

Yet Google still just gives it away.

Google owns Android and Chrome which are by far the dominate clients. Then
owns the #1 and #2 most popular Internet sites with search and YouTube.

They create SPDY which is a better solution and save cost and really no reason
needing to share. Yet they give it away to the standards committee. Who then
changes and Google goes back and moves to the standard with HTTP2.

Google is doing this while being in the dominate position. When MS was
dominate you would never see them doing something like this. Honestly it is
not really smart business but glad Google cares more about the overall
industry moving forward. They get all ships rise is good also for them.

Security is another perfect example. They invest and find all the major
security vulnerabilities like Shellshock, Cloudbleed, Heartbleed, Metdown,
Spectre among others.

They share these vulnerabilities and even mitigations to the entire market
because all ships rising helps Google and just how they look at it.

They find vulnerabilities with Microsoft and give them 90 days to fix. MS
fails to fix and b*tches instead of thanking Google.

One of the biggest is the silliness from the Mpeg-LA. They charge ridiculous
license fees with mpeg-2. Google saw that and invested into creating VP8. That
forced the Mpeg-LA to stop extorting money.

But Google does not keep it just for themselves and use as a competitive
advantage like any "good" business would do.

Instead they not only give away for free but then also protect anyone from
patent infringement. That is crazy.

Give away for free and then also protect?

Some of the IP they give away is just crazy. Borg was novel and just
incredibly valuable and they give away Borg through Kubernettes (K8). Who does
that? Well all ships rise and so do they.

They do not charge royalties for IP like Microsoft and the other do. They sure
have some incredible IP but they just give it away. Map/Reduce, Text2Vec, GFS,
WaveNet, or so many different incredible papers. I just love they share their
"secrets" and help everyone move forward and do not just keep to themselves.

But they also do the "right" thing and not something that just gets them a
buck or a billion bucks.

Perfect example is China. The China government tried to hack Gmail accounts of
their citizens data. Google walked away from billion in China and said that is
not acceptable.

But then we have Apple hand over all their customers data to the government
but also the encryption keys. Just the perfect contrast you can have.

"Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users"

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-
privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-
betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/)

Google is a new tech type company that has a very different culture than the
old tech companies. They believe in all boats rise helps also them instead of
trying to hurt competitors with things that do NOT move the industry forward.

~~~
sharcerer
Exactly. Personally, i widh larry,sergey came out in public more often. I
think Alphabet is getting hurt coz of their absence. Google gets really less
appreciated. I guess people forget the Good when even a little bad is
committed.

------
AndrewKemendo
I think it's important to note, and keep in mind, that DeepMind is explicitly
trying to create Artificial General Intelligence. In their words:

 _" solving intelligence, and then using that to solve everything else"_

Even just five years ago, those of us who attended AGI conferences or
discussed AGI would get kicked out of the room for publicly contemplating the
topic.

OpenAI has the same charter.

So why is it still taboo to discuss?

[1] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601139/how-google-
plans-t...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601139/how-google-plans-to-
solve-artificial-intelligence/)

