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

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#141

Post by rtcode_io »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #106
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…

Then US industry players should give a mistral a call to shut this down before it can become a thing that can cause them issues!

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#142

Post by mcmcmc »

fluidcruft wrote: post #121
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;…

Copyrights for protecting software seems likely to die on the altar of LLMs. It seems likely patents will become more important.

I hope not. That will just encourage more lawfare and market consolidation instead of competition and innovation

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#143

Post by tancop »

lolive wrote: post #87
elil17 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents are probably unenforceable in most cases, at least in the US and Europe, are essentially unenforceable. The European Patent Office, very sensibly, denies software patents. The USPTO has a strange insistence on granting them even though they aren't legally valid. Therefore, if you have a lot of money, you might file a software patent for one of four reasons: 1) You hope that the US courts might one da…

I filled a patent in France. That was denied by the French office as being a conceptual method More than an invention. I accepted that decision. But there is a completely unexpected side effect, explained to me by a patent advisor. I probably now can oppose that nullified patent to any patent that would implement a version of that conceptual method. Not sure of the reality of that statement, but that’s a funny backfi…

it makes perfect sense. inventions implementing some abstract concept thats already known with prior art (like your rejected patent) cant really count as novel.

otherwise an evil law firm could spam adaptations of your idea to every relevant industry and get rights over your invention without your consent. that would be a complete perversion of what the patent system is supposed to do.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#144

Post by jlokier »

freejazz wrote: post #111
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…

> 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?

> what is the point of a patent if not to enforce the right of exclusivity it grants

Usually it's to defend against another company using a "blocking patent" by pursuing you for infringing their patent which is built upon the thing you patented, doing the next step which was always obvious to you.

So that you can continue building what you started in the first place, instead of being shut down while someone else takes your idea forward.

Not for exclusivity.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#145

Post by silver_sun »

sarjann wrote: post #55

I do wonder if we need a charitable foundation that does software patents and makes them freely available just to stop cockroaches abusing patents. Another step (although governance would need to be super good for this). Would be for this charity to withold access to these patents from companies that decide to abuse stupid patents.

Are you thinking of TDCommons? https://www.tdcommons.org/

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#146

Post by randyrand »

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;…

I disagree. If patents are to exist there is no reason software that should be an exception.

Us programmers are essentially arranging blocks. And if you arrange them in a special way you can get your stylus to follow them in amazing ways.

I don’t see why that’s very different than arranging atoms.

At the lowest level, software is always represented physically in the medium. It’s concrete.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#147

Post by connicpu »

randyrand wrote: post #146
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;…

I disagree. If patents are to exist there is no reason software that should be an exception. Us programmers are essentially arranging blocks. And if you arrange them in a special way you can get your stylus to follow them in amazing ways. I don’t see why that’s very different than arranging atoms. At the lowest level, software is always represented physically in the medium. It’s concrete.

I think the point is more that the patent office has been too broad with issuing software patents. I'm sure some are reasonable, but many are "obvious to someone skilled in the art" and should not have been issued.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#148

Post by andy_ppp »

randyrand wrote: post #146
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;…

I disagree. If patents are to exist there is no reason software that should be an exception. Us programmers are essentially arranging blocks. And if you arrange them in a special way you can get your stylus to follow them in amazing ways. I don’t see why that’s very different than arranging atoms. At the lowest level, software is always represented physically in the medium. It’s concrete.

You make an argument for patents not existing then, certainly they should not exist for more than 5 years, you should have exploited your discovery by then and competition is fine.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#149

Post by coldpie »

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;…

A teammate put my name on a patent proposal he filed with our legal team. I immediately demanded to have my name taken off of it. No way I would accept having my name associated with that trash. I'm sorry you weren't able to get out of it.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#150

Post by fluidcruft »

mcmcmc wrote: post #142
fluidcruft wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyrights for protecting software seems likely to die on the altar of LLMs. It seems likely patents will become more important.

I hope not. That will just encourage more lawfare and market consolidation instead of competition and innovation

Hey, we can also expect LLMs to clog the wheels of the USPTO with patentslop so at least we've got that going for us.
Post reply on HN