Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

patentsgazette.uspto.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#101

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

ffsm8 wrote: post #88
st_goliath wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have heard about a little thing called MP3? Basically, Fraunhofer in Germany filed for (software) patents in the US. They made sure to wait some time for MP3 to become a thing before they started going after people and collect royalties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing,_ownership,_and_...

Ha, you're misremembering, but it's been a long time so I don't begrudge you. Fraunhofer is a research institution. They didn't really do licencing, that's why they never went after anyone. Then Thomson joined the venture (wouldn't you know it, French!) and the fun with litigation got started Not trying to protect Frauenhofer there at all, if they didn't smell opportunity they wouldn't have teamed up with Thomson aft…

Fraunhofer absolutely does licensing. That is one of their main sources of income. Also,your retelling of the story is off: https://www.4ipcouncil.com/features/mp3-digital-audio-coding

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#103

Post by freejazz »

linuxhansl wrote: post #99

Having my name on a bunch of software patents - and, yes, I tried to get my name off them, but was not allowed - I can fairly confidently say: There is not A single worthy software patent out there. You know, one that is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art" and that actually protects a monetary investment. Software patent are a scourge of the software industry. Patents are designed to protect costly research;…

>For software Copyright is a far better instrument. Let the one with best implementation win... That's where the cost is: Implementing, testing, shipping, maintaining. Protect that.

But this is minimally protectable, and you can copy the idea just not the exact implementation. Copyright does not have a 'doctrine of equivalents' equivalent. It also supports independent creation. Copyright also does not cover functional elements. You cannot copyright an idea, only the expression. So maybe you can elaborate more on why your point makes sense?

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#104

Post by sarjann »

discopicante wrote: post #95
jrflo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why all patents exist. It's ridiculously time consuming and expensive to get a utility patent for anything. I invented something at my old company 5 years ago and the patent process is still ongoing, should hopefully get awarded this year. It costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and you need to actively litigate infringements if you want to keep it. 99% of patents exist just for legal bullying and…

Patents also exist for defensive purposes e.g. if you go after us for x, we will countersue for y.

Google + Motorola aquisition vs Apple is a prime example.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#106

Post by OkayPhysicist »

Topfi wrote: post #33

Still pending, or am I mistaken? Can anyone with knowledge on the US process make an estimate how likely this is to go through? I know of Uniloc and their "efforts", is there a possibility that this could take a similarly damaging path?

In the US, the patent office almost always grants patents as long as the correct process is followed. They don't really concern themselves with whether a patent could be successfully challenged, they just care about whether the the application is shaped like a patent. They leave it to the courts to invalidate all the bad patents they approve. It's pretty terrible: the very least they could do is ask a random dude in the relevant industry whether there's anything novel there at all, and they don't even do that.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#107

Post by basisword »

linuxhansl wrote: post #99

Having my name on a bunch of software patents - and, yes, I tried to get my name off them, but was not allowed - I can fairly confidently say: There is not A single worthy software patent out there. You know, one that is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art" and that actually protects a monetary investment. Software patent are a scourge of the software industry. Patents are designed to protect costly research;…

From a laymans perspective they also don't seem to work. Apple's multitouch felt like something brand new to consumers and yet other device manufacturers copied it anyway. Facebook entire product line is dependent on ripping off competitors unique features. What's the point?

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#108

Post by ffsm8 »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #101
ffsm8 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, you're misremembering, but it's been a long time so I don't begrudge you. Fraunhofer is a research institution. They didn't really do licencing, that's why they never went after anyone. Then Thomson joined the venture (wouldn't you know it, French!) and the fun with litigation got started Not trying to protect Frauenhofer there at all, if they didn't smell opportunity they wouldn't have teamed up with Thomson aft…

Fraunhofer absolutely does licensing. That is one of their main sources of income. Also,your retelling of the story is off: https://www.4ipcouncil.com/features/mp3-digital-audio-coding

I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Fraunhofer didn't do licencing before joining up with Thomson. That's why - back in the 90s - there were no litigation anywhere even though everyone ignored their patents.

Then Frauenhofer joined up with Thomson and that's where your understanding joins up with reality: now the Frauenhofer does licencing and sues anyone that's not paying them.

My whole comment was a technical tidbit - maybe meaningless from today's perspective... But the previous view interpreted a forward thinking strategy with the monetization of mp3 that just wasn't there

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#109

Post by purplemoonx »

Getting a patent on software is mid-brain mid-manager shit to pad marketing and inflate egos, doesn't really do anything.

I could copy this "design" exactly and it would be totally fair to use. Exhibit 270 is my favorite

    Results in JSON format
Novel bro, novel.

If Apple lost the "Swipe" patent on a device they pioneered, your standard HTTP API is probably not that original.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#110

Post by freejazz »

dnautics wrote: post #98
kingstnap wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USPTO has a strange insistence on granting them even though they aren't legally valid I recently learned [0] that the USPTO makes it money from patents, its not government funded. Not only that but checking patents loses them net money while maintenance fees are the real cash cow. The whole system is similar to the revenue model of a shitty journal that just publishes whatever research as long as the author pay…

> its not government funded It's not the user fee model that's broken, it's the revenue basis. Maybe it would be more effective if they tripled the filing cost and if you successfully obtain the patent (it's rejected by the patent officers), you get half back.

That surely wouldn't benefit incumbent large organizations against small time inventors
Post reply on HN