Henry Markram, of spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP) fame and infamous for the Human Brain Project (HBP), just got a US patent for "Constructing and operating an artificial recurrent neural network": https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230019839A1/en
How is that not something thousands of undergrads are doing with PyTorch every week?
The goal, says the patent text, is for <<methods and processes for constructing and operating a recurrent artificial neural network that acts as a “neurosynaptic computer”>> – which seems patentable, but not the overreach that is patenting the construction and operation of an RNN, which is, instead, ludicrous.
Seems likely that the legal office in Markram's research institution did an overreach and got away with it. Good luck enforcing this patent though: Markram did not invent RNNs.
@albertcardona since you cannot patent laws of nature or abstract concepts (including math algorithms), this has seemingly more to do with analytical processes implemented at HBP - RNNs and biological processes should be safe! I am just confused with the strategy: who would ‘buy’ such specialized programs? Why not go open source, where you’d get maximum scrutiny/community support?
Worse still, there seems to be a whole string of US patents awarded to Markram himself or Markram and colleagues on the subject of recurrent neural networks and their analysis and application. What gives?
Is this Markram's vengeance on all the bad publicity he's got as a fallout from the HBP? Because these patents, if enforceable (a big if), are a massive stick in the wheels of most of modern neuroscience and artificial neural network research.
Plus patenting an RNN is like patenting the brain. All biological neural circuits are recurrent. The application I can understand, even if I don't agree with the use of a patent for them, but to parent the core idea of an RNN and how to construct and operate it is ludicrous beyond belief.
Add comment