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

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#41

Post by GuB-42 »

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...

I don't disagree, but Mistral is hardly a "rich player" in the current AI bubble.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and X are each valued at a trillion or more. Mistral is valued at $20B, 50x less. Even Deepseek is several times bigger than Mistral.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#42

Post by david_draco »

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.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#43

Post by samuelknight »

maeln wrote: post #9

How is the US patent registry easy to search ? I would be curious to see the patent registration of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. One way or another, I do fully expect every of those companies to try to fill these kinds of "almost for sure invalid and overturnable" patent as a way to defend themselves from every other actor (the classic "Oh I infringed on your patent ? Well here are some of MY patent you are infrin…

Believe it or not, but law offices make heavy use of https://patents.google.com/

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#45

Post by Ekaros »

GuB-42 wrote: post #41
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...

I don't disagree, but Mistral is hardly a "rich player" in the current AI bubble. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and X are each valued at a trillion or more. Mistral is valued at $20B, 50x less. Even Deepseek is several times bigger than Mistral.

What a time we live in when 20 billion is considered poor... I would consider companies in sub million range to be poor and that is charitable already...

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#46

Post by jazzyjackson »

dummydummy1234 wrote: post #4

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

Improvements in existing tech can be patented. An RPC call that an AI writes for itself and then executes is a novelty from prior art. Whether it’s non-obvious is up for debate but if it gets past the patent officer that debate happens via lawsuit

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#48

Post by CodesInChaos »

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".

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#49

Post by rayiner »

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...

Economically, it’s to avoid free-rider effects. This benefit largely seems alien to tech people because the industry inherently has other moats: network effects, data and code in a server instead of a product sold to consumers that competitors can easily disassemble and reverse engineer, etc.
Post reply on HN