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

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#81

Post by mizzao »

elil17 wrote: post #76
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...

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…

Also, corollary from the above: you want to make lawyers happy in an acquisition because of the above, which allows you to sell for more $

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#83

Post by mkovach »

Setting aside the tech, which looks like an asynchronous await across a network, the interesting question is why Mistral would patent this in the US.

Simple, because the patent is less about protecting an invention than doing business in the US.

The US is more hospitable to software patents than Europe. A US patent also gives Mistral something useful when dealing with companies that already hold large patent portfolios: defensive leverage, cross-licensing, and one more asset on the books to make it attractive to investors.

There's a certain absurdity to it, and the French have a history with absurd. A French open-weights company crosses the Atlantic to put a patent around a loop, not because the code is remarkable, but because the American market makes the loop a valuable asset, business-wise.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#85

Post by thayne »

throw1234567891 wrote: post #84

I have prior art, there's a ton of prior art GitHub, good luck with that patent.

Plenty of things with prior art are successfully patentend. And are successfully enforced, because it is cheaper to pay the troll to cross the bridge than to take it to court. It isn't until the sue the wrong person who has the backbone and the resources to contest it that the patent gets revoked.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#87

Post by lolive »

elil17 wrote: post #76
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...

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 backfire.

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#88

Post by ffsm8 »

st_goliath wrote: post #74
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.

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 after all... But I think the trend is very clear. Germans are generally a lot worse at the litigation game then the french. Historically that makes sense, but it's definitely surprising that it still holds true in modern times

Re: Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”

#90

Post by inigyou »

rayiner wrote: post #49
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.

Is that a stated purpose or a POSIWID purpose?
Post reply on HN