Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls” • Hacker News Board

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#111

Post by freejazz » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

jrflo wrote: post #92

Ekaros wrote: post #18

Do software patents only exist for rich players to build a moat against poorer players? At this point with patents of this quality only reason for them to exist seems to be to cross-license them for extra revenue and to possibly block anyone too poor to fight for themselves...

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…

> you need to actively litigate infringements if you want to keep it.

No you don't. That being said, what is the point of a patent if not to enforce the right of exclusivity it grants as to the invention?

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#112

Post by j-bos » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

CodesInChaos wrote: post #48

dummydummy1234 wrote: post #4

So anyone have prior art we can point to? Because no way is a rpc call novel.

Unfortunately there are many patents that simply combine an old thing with a new thing in the obvious way. Since the new thing is new, the combination is "novel".

Law says must be NON obvious

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#113

Post by hypendev » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

How does this make sense? It is public knowledge/pattern.

Given I wrote an article describing the same things years before they submitted the patent, could I not invalidate their patent with that?

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#114

Post by tantalor » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

basisword wrote: post #107

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?

I think the point is to prevent researchers from changing jobs.

1. Researcher makes something

2. Employer patents it using researcher's name

3. Researcher gets a new job

4. Researcher makes something at new job vaguely similar to #1

5. Old employer sues for patent violation

By attaching their name to the patent, it is easy to prove they were aware of it.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#115

Post by eru » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

jablongo wrote: post #97

Ekaros wrote: post #18

Do software patents only exist for rich players to build a moat against poorer players? At this point with patents of this quality only reason for them to exist seems to be to cross-license them for extra revenue and to possibly block anyone too poor to fight for themselves...

In theory patents are also to protect smaller players (though not dirt poor), from getting their work ripped off by bigger players after demonstrating feasibility. The idea of being an "inventor" professionally only really works with patents. Software patents pushes this model to logical extremes though. I run a small startup that trains models for medical devices and the only way to get any of the large players to c…

> The idea of being an "inventor" professionally only really works with patents.

Well, trade secrets could also do the trick?

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#116

Post by freejazz » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

purplemoonx wrote: post #109

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.

"Fair use" is not a defense in patent law

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#117

Post by dnautics » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 5:00 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #110

dnautics wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

it's been a while since the patenting system benefit small time inventors

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#118

Post by _fizz_buzz_ » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 5:01 PM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #108

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I feel your argument is shifting. Also, it was Fraunhofer that was threatening developers at the end of the 90s not Thomson. Fraunhofer will very aggressively defend their patents/licenses.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#119

Post by purplemoonx » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 5:05 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #116

purplemoonx wrote: post #109

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.

"Fair use" is not a defense in patent law

That's fair

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#120

Post by TheMagicHorsey » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

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;…

Anyone who has ever taken part in a software patent litigation ... or in the creation of a software patent, knows intimately that its a bunch of bullshit.

The boogieman that software patent advocates raise is that IP theft and free riding will destroy America if we don't have patents. But literally nobody is creating software to get a patent on it, and software patents don't stop anyone from replicating software.

Instead software patents are just a way for mediocre lawyers to live parasitically off the tech industry.

Imagine a world where we were so worried about bullying that we created a department to monitor all speech on the Internet, and you had to run your speech past lawyers for approval before saying anything. And you could be sued for saying anything by anyone if you didn't get lawyer approval. That would be a world with dramatically less bullying than the Internet today. AND a much worse world with much less communication. AND in that alternate world, the lawyers would argue that there would be more bullying if we put that ridiculous system to an end. And they would be right that there would be some more bullying, AND it would also be right that that degree of bullying would be worth it to have free speech.

Similarly with patents. Yeah, on the margins there might be more IP theft. SO WHAT. This system right now sucks.