
Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions - riscy
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/27/2019-18443/request-for-comments-on-patenting-artificial-intelligence-inventions
======
mattkrause
The weird eligibility requirements for the patent bar also encourage this
stuff.

Computer scientists are only eligible if they have an undergrad degree from an
ABET-accredited program. This rules out people coming from AI powerhouses like
CMU and Stanford, as well as Princeton, Yale, etc. Masters and doctoral
degrees also don’t count, which is baffling since a PhD involves reading a
huge chunk of the literature. The whole process is centered around 1960s
“mechanical engineering as the source of all innovation” ideas and seems like
it needs a massive update.

~~~
tzs
There are a couple of other routes to eligibility.

One is by having sufficient coursework in various categories, even if you
degree itself was not one they recognize. There are four options if you do it
this way.

They are 24 semester hours in physics; or 32 semester hours that includes 8
hours of either physics or chemistry and 24 hours in biology, botany,
microbiology, or molecular biology; or 30 hours in chemistry; or 8 hours of
either chemistry or physics and 32 hours in chemistry, physics, biology,
botany, microbiology, molecular biology, or engineeing.

Under that last option, computer science courses count.

The other route in is by taking and passing the Fundamentals of Engineering
(FE) test.

I was once seriously considering becoming a patent agent, but my degree is in
math (Caltech, class of '82) which is not on the PTO's list of acceptable
degrees, and so looked into these other routes.

The main issue with the coursework route for me was that when I was there
Caltech graded all first year courses pass/fail, and the PTO does not count
courses taken pass/fail. That knocked a year of physics, a term of physics
lab, a year of chemistry, and a year of chemistry lab out of the running.

The FE test route looked quite reasonable. This was a long time ago, and I
believe they have changed the format of the test since then, but when I was
looking it looked like it would have taken maybe a month or two of spare time
prep.

~~~
mattkrause
Yeah, I could certainly cram for the FE exam, though only a few states let
anyone sit for it. Likewise, it wouldn’t be impossible to take two semesters
of chemistry at some community college.

Still, this seems like a massive, unnecessary effort to establish that your
Caltech degree, or my Yale one, are at least as good as one from DeVry Tech.

------
lars
These ML patents are damaging the progress of AI research, and also the
commercial use of this intellectual progress.

One way to attack this would be if researchers outside of Google and Facebook
started patenting their discoveries, but then immediately released all rights
to it under a license that's valid for anyone who does not sue offensively.
That way if Google wanted to sue for infringing use of invention A, they would
themselves immediately be infringing on invention B and C. Quickly any large
player would be entangled into a web where any offensive lawsuit is
impossible. If we had standardized licenses with these clauses, we could stand
a chance to stop this.

~~~
logicchains
Yet when Facebook tried that, there was intense resistance and they ended up
giving up.

~~~
lars
The react license had "we won't sue you for violating our patents, except if
you sue us first.", which entails "if you use this, you can't sue us for
violating your patents, because by using this you guarantee that we have
material for a countersuit." People felt that this asymmetrically benefited
Facebook. You want Facebook to be on the other side of such an agreement. If a
license was made that came with an agreement that neither party can sue
_anyone_ in an offensive patent suit, it would limit the destructive power of
the big players that hold all the patents.

If BatchNorm, ConvNets, LSTMs, Dropout, ReLUs or any such essential neural net
component came with such a clause, I could see the big players accepting the
license, especially since it aligns with their publicly stated claim that they
only file patents for defensive purposes.

------
givinguflac
I would argue that patents simply shouldn’t apply to this arena. It’s barely
understood enough today, and locking things up with patents will only hold it
back for society and concentrate power in the hands of a few.

~~~
jobigoud
You could also argue that an AI inventor should have the same rights and
protections as a human inventor. Or maybe as a underage inventor represented
by their parents.

~~~
ngngngng
Am I misunderstanding the subject? I thought it was just asking for comments
about patents for AI technology. Are we talking about patents for things
invented by computers? That is a really interesting subject that I've never
thought about.

~~~
jobigoud
Yes they are requesting comments on both and trying to figure out where one
starts and the other ends.

From the article:

> 1\. Inventions that utilize AI, as well as inventions that are developed by
> AI

> 3\. Do current patent laws and regulations regarding inventorship need to be
> revised to take into account inventions where an entity or entities other
> than a natural person contributed to the conception of an invention?

------
stochastic_monk
I hope there’s a similar precedent set to Alice vs. CLS Bank [0], stating that
the same idea but implemented on a computer isn’t sufficient for a patent. It
seems reasonable to me that solving a problem with artificial intelligence
should follow similar rules.

[0] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/bad-day-bad-patents-
su...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/bad-day-bad-patents-supreme-
court-unanimously-strikes-down-abstract-software)

~~~
jobigoud
I think there are two completely different issues conflated here. Inventions
in the domain of AI, aka new algorithms, and inventions made by an AI. Once an
AI is genuinely capable of new inventions it's arguable that it should have
the same protections as its human co-inventors or tutors (assuming AI
personhood is not a thing when this happens.).

An invention submitted by a group containing an AI co-inventor or using an
uncredited AI as a tool could be in any field, not necessarily a software
patent, so the "idea but implemented on a computer" doesn't really come into
play here.

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

If the USPTO has trouble understanding a technology, they should err on the
side of caution and NOT grant the patents, instead of asking for comments ex
post-facto

Take for example Dropout. This is a ridiculous thing to patent. Dropout is
essentially half your network malfunctioning. A computer that randomly caught
fire could "come up" with the same "algorithm". How can the USPTO judge that
patenting this thing in any way would help innovation (that's the purpose of
patents). In fact, most researchers will now be discouraged from researching
dropout-like techniques any further

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

For all the faults of patents (and there are many), one of the great benefits
is that when you patent something, you must publish it for all to see. If we
want to keep innovation moving along quickly, there needs to be incentives to
publish your findings for everyone to review and build on.

The lawsuits don't really start until someone starts making big money. Yes,
they are burdensome and expensive, but I'd rather keep innovation moving
quickly and having the winner pay a tax than not having any innovation at all.

~~~
phkahler
The publication benefit is gone. Most patents are worthless for gaining
understanding. They're written to be deliberately vague so as to encompass as
much as possible. There may be some details, but a store knowledge they are
not.

~~~
furyofantares
And what's worse, the legal advice I've often been given is not to read
patents at all. It's considered a liability to have read a patent.

------
Findeton
Patents are absurd, in general, any kind of patents.

------
sdan
Google patenting backprop is quite ridiculous. Since most if not all ML
researchers come across this at some point and is used in many commercial
applications. Not sure why they did it in the first place, but it's likely
impossible to regulate.

Here's their patent:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5052043A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5052043A/en)

~~~
malms
They did it to protect themselves from patent trolls.

~~~
buboard
That's a ridiculous argument. Google has patented way more than this (most
recently all kinds of recurrent nets for sequences). As long as these patents
belong to alphabet they 're dangerous. Google could have set up a nonprofit
for them if they really cared. What if google is bought out in 5 years? What
if they get real competition and decide to go full evil?

These patents are overly broad, overly premature. They should never have been
granted in the first place.

I think the NN pioneers who are first names in these patents should set up a
nonprofit themselves. Hopefully many of them still seem to believe in the
ethic of science , having lived decades in which nobody cared about NNs

~~~
0-_-0
Google is not the only company who accumulated a patent portfolio to be used
defensively. If they start suing people they can expect to be sued back. It
would also potentially ruin Google's relationship with other companies who
would be reluctant to work with them if it could lead to a chance to be sued:
e.g. If you sell some technology to Google to use they can discover that it
has something that looks like something that they patented, which is enough
grounds to sue you. This is too much risk for companies who don't have the
money to mount a legal defense, even if they don't actually violate any
patents.

The current state is sort of a patent cold war where both sides have weapons
but they don't use them. So we get the advantages of patents (disclosure)
without many of the potential disadvantages.

~~~
buboard
If OTOH, USPTO had rejected these applications there would be no need for this
cold war

~~~
0-_-0
Sure, but then a lot of developed technology would remain secret forever.

------
pnw_hazor
I have worked with several AI/ML inventions. In the patent applications I am
familiar with, the AI/ML components are often treated as black-boxes. Because
the AI/ML components of the system are not really novel. Not unlike how a
processor or memory component doesn't contribute to novelty either.

Also, the AI/ML parts of inventions I have seen are based on conventional/non-
patentable AI/ML techniques.

It is the combination of AI/ML components with other components, such as, the
bits about managing the inputs, outputs, feedback loops, model
selection/management, training optimizations, or the like, that make a
patentable AI/ML invention. Further, IMO, it would be poor patent drafting to
draft a patent application that relies on particular AI/ML techniques. If your
AI/ML techniques are really novel and patentable, you should still draft the
patent such that other AI/ML techniques could be substituted into the system
as well as claiming the unique AI/ML technique.

------
a3n
Can an AI patent itself?

~~~
johnnycab
This question is also asked in the RFC by adopting a rather philosphical
stance towards assigning a patent to an 'AI based entity'.

 _4\. Should an entity or entities other than a natural person, or company to
which a natural person assigns an invention, be able to own a patent on the AI
invention? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial
intelligence process that creates the invention be able to be an owner?_

------
fromthestart
>Do current patent laws and regulations regarding inventorship need to be
revised to take into account inventions where an entity or entities other than
a natural person contributed to the conception of an invention

Well, this seems a little dangerous. I would argue that any invention or
innovation generated by an AI should be made public domain.

As we rapidly approach the possibility of genuine AI, the gap between the
haves and have nots will increasingly be defined not by accumulation of
capital but by accumulation and control of information. If the explosion of
technical progress we've seen in ML recently continues, it's quite likely that
future designs and breakthroughs will eventually come from neural nets
themselves - and if we define these innovations as IP and afford the usual
legal protections to the nets that generated them, as the question seems to
imply ("other than natural persons"), then I imagine by proxy the ultimate
owner of the patent is the owner of the net. Which forms the foundation of a
dystopia defined by unprecedented "wealth" inequality where one or a handful
of first movers become irreversibly entrenched as the gap between AI powered
innovation and human powered innovation will widen exponentially once that
door is unlocked.

I think much of the progress in the ML explosion is owed to the beauty of open
source and open access publishing on arxiv, and I can't help but feel like
getting neural network designs mixed up with patent law would stymie the
iterative collaboration that defines ML research.

------
test444
Technology should be free

------
test101
AI will be a curse for humanity.

~~~
buboard
But the curse will be patented

