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

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#151

Post by whimsicalism »

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'm okay with participating in the software patent system for defensive purposes, but agreed that it is very stupid.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#152

Post by tliltocatl »

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;…

> Patents are designed to protect costly research

I'd argue that how they should have been, but the reality is quite the opposite. The patent framework is all about novel ideas rather than costly research, even though ideas aren't any valuable anymore - the easy stuff that is cheap to reproduce once the idea is known is already discovered.

Multimedia codecs and similar stuff are pretty patent-worthy (costly research) but their value is an exponential function of their adoption, and hence the unencumbered one always wins. Same with basically everything else.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#153

Post by speedgoose »

david_draco wrote: post #42
Roark66 wrote: post #34

It is quite funny an EU company patenting a software feature that is basically unpatentable in EU in the US. Clearly this is an attempt to prevent similar patents from being weaponised against them in the US. No one cares about such stuff in Europe.

Unfortunately patent offices are using loopholes that reintroduce software patents. Patent law says that a pure software patent is not possible, it has to be combined with a specific hardware application to make it an invention. So they fill in a patent for "XX implemented on a hardware operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water.". That's essentially a software patent.

That sounds like patent trolls shenanigans.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#154

Post by OkayPhysicist »

rtcode_io wrote: post #141
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The US industry players are unconcerned. Mistral wouldn't be stupid enough to use this patent against them, because they know damn well they'd lose, and then have their patent invalidated. No, more likely Mistral is planning on using this patent as a cudgel against small start-ups and open-weight models, who don't have the resources to fight back effectively. Which is good for Anthropic/"Open"AI.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#155

Post by speedgoose »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #123
j-bos wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law says must be NON obvious

The patent office applies a much lower "non-obviousness" threshold than how a technical person would interpret that word.

It’s old memories from the engineering school in Europe but I remember that a patent office is about collecting fees and documents, and won’t do any actual checks on the patents validities.

Whether a patent is valid is tested in court.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#156

Post by paperwallet »

jlokier wrote: post #144
freejazz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 take…

Not saying it is not used for this purpose, but this just proves how broken the system actually is.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#157

Post by didibus »

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;…

> That's where the cost is

That's where the cost

I think with LLM, implementation winning is moot now.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#159

Post by tmgldn »

jjice wrote: post #122
Roark66 wrote: post #34

It is quite funny an EU company patenting a software feature that is basically unpatentable in EU in the US. Clearly this is an attempt to prevent similar patents from being weaponised against them in the US. No one cares about such stuff in Europe.

> Clearly this is an attempt to prevent similar patents from being weaponised against them in the US. Why do we assume that Mistral is a "good guy" protecting themselves? I'm not sure they necessarily are. Could just be trying to grab any ground they can. I mean, maybe they are the "good guy", but I don't think we know either way.

I mean they have a healthy dollop of US VC private investment, so good guys is off the cards - but in relative terms, they seem to follow the law, which in Silicon Valley is certainly not a given.
Post reply on HN