Big business isn't really monolithic when it comes to patents. Some large tech companies love patents (MSFT, e.g.), while others (Google, e.g.) seem to abhor them.
Also, the troll problem is a problem for big business, not a benefit to big business.
Patent trolls benefit from it being expensive and time-consuming to challenge patents (and defend yourself from infringement claims)
These regulations are actually beneficial to big business. It makes it significantly easier to defend your own patents and sue anybody that infringes on them.
I imagine that these benefits are much bigger than the downside of dealing with patent trolls.
For what purpose? If it's for prior art, the prior at must have been publicly available, so a private LLM wouldn't work. Perhaps I'm missing your point, though.
I think the idea is that if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention, then either the idea is obvious or there was prior art in the training set; either way the patent is invalid.
> ...if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention...
Would we even be able to tell if the machine reproduced the invention covered by the claims in the patent?
I (regrettably) have my name on some US software patents. I've read the patents, have intimate knowledge of the software they claim to cover, and see nearly zero relation between the patent and the covered software. If I set a skilled programmer to the task of reproducing the software components that are supposed to be covered by the patents, I guarantee that they'd fail, and fail hard.
Back before I knew about the whole "treble damage thing" (and just how terrible many-to-most software patents are) I read many software patents. I found them to offer no hints to the programmer seeking to reproduce the covered software component or system.
Indeed, but a constructive reduction to practice means that the inventor still has to describe how it can be done. And if it's impossible, then it's not a reduction to practice, just an invalid patent.
I had similar thoughts before. It's worth thinking about what attorneys will do in response to rejections based on LLMs reproducing ideas. I'm a former patent examiner, and attorneys frequently argue that the examiners showed "hindsight bias" when rejecting claims. The LLM needs to produce the idea without being led too much towards it.
Something like clean-room reverse engineering could be applied. First ask a LLM to describe the problem in a way that avoids disclosing the solution, then ask an independent LLM how that problem could be solved. If LLMs can reliably produce the idea in response to the problem description, that is, after running a LLM 100 times over half show the idea (the fraction here is made up for illustration), the idea's obvious.
I get that fluoxetine, a relatively old SSRI is a dirty drug, but aren't newer serotonin modulators much cleaner? E.g., vilazodone, vortioxetine, and even old-fashioned Escitalopram (lexapro)?
My understanding is that escitalopram has pretty low binding affinity for other receptors than SERT.
But serotonin is active in many aspects of the body's physiology no? So just because it may not act on other classes of receptors, it still has wide ranging impacts. There are many kinds of SERT receptors, as they mentioned, Fk isn't all that selective about it
Fuck vilazadone and vortioxetine with 500kV. That shit gave me seizures, zaps, and myoclonus.
Fluoxetine made my mom murderously psychotic. Paroxetine gave me immediate serotonin syndrome.
The truth is most psychiatrists are unscientific shamans who don't measure or analyze the organ or systems they're supposedly treating.
The only thing I've found tolerable from more than a dozen medications has been mirtazapine. All SSRIs I've tried were of marginal benefit with terrible side-effects.
I'd at least try the xyrem. I've tried it - didn't work for me (my sleep issues are caused by something else), but it's not as incapacitating as it's made out to sound.
SCOTUS denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby leaving the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Google's favor intact.
However, the 2nd Circuit's ruling is not binding on any other federal circuits.
Also, as Enginerrd stated, the holding is not nearly as broad as the article makes it out to be.
The holding was:
1. Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.
2. Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement.
Based on the above holding, I think the article's conclusion is a stretch for general training algorithms using copyrighted data because: (1) there would not be a library supplying the information to the training algorithm, (2) there would be no similar display of snippets, and (3) we do not know if a training algorithm would provide a market substitute for the copyrighted data.
While the decision is only binding in the 2nd circuit, the precedent is admissible in other courts. If this goes to trial in a different circuit you can bring the finding to the judge who will consider it - it won't be binding, but he will consider it. If it goes to appeal in a different circuit the next circuit will reference this in their decision - if they decide the 2nd is wrong they will be very clear why the they think the 2nd circuit is wrong when they make ruling (and this can in turn be re-submitted to the 2nd circuit who might change their mind if the reasoning is good enough). If this goes to the supreme court in the future they will read this decision and it will influence them - again they can decide either way.
Yes, the 2nd Circuit's decision is persuasive authority for other circuits. However, that's not what the article claims. The article claims that SCOTUS ruled when it, in fact, did not.
SCOTUS ruled on the cert petition; what people may not understand is that while that is a ruling, it is (and there is explicit precedent on this point) not one which has precedential weight (even as persuasive authority) as regards the merits of the issues addressed in the lower court ruling.
Isn't it unlikely that a case will be granted cert if appeals courts in different circuits are in agreement? I.e. not a circuit split? So while not legally binding, it might be in practice indicative.
I wonder, does this mean I can scrape Instagram/Facebook for photos and use them for face recognition? Is that 'fair use'? Is an Instagram post a publication?
> Isn't it unlikely that a case will be granted cert if appeals courts in different circuits are in agreement?
As I understand, it's generally viewed to be th case that a circuit split makes cert. more likely, sure.
> So while not legally binding, it might be in practice indicative.
I guess that it's indicative that, barring change in membership of th court, cert. would likely be denied in a future case raising the same issue from the same or a different circuit with the same result.
It definitely should not be seen as indicative of anything on the merits other than that the members of the court don't see it as obviously and urgently wrong.
The inventor of Raptor codes, M. Amin Shokrollahi, sold his company, Digital Fountain, to Qualcomm. Upon the sale to Qualcomm, Qualcomm acquired all of Digital Fountain's IP rights.
Qualcomm has asserted that these Raptor code-related patents (an early one of which was filed in 2004) are standards essential, and require to be licensed from Qualcomm.[1][2]
The below-linked patent would expire in 2024. However, there are a slew of continuation applications that expire much later than 2024.
Update: additionally, there is at least one earlier-dated patent filed in 1999, which expired in February. [3]
Also, the troll problem is a problem for big business, not a benefit to big business.