Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[syzygy]

IMO this reinforces what I've been saying: companies that made "PC Compatible" computers didn't make exact copies of the machinery of IBM PCs - they had to make new, different machines that were different from (but had the same functionality as) IBM PCs. They had to do this in "clean rooms" without copying the original machines. They weren't able to just make exact copies of the original machines. Before PCs, the same rules applied to "plug compatible" mainframes.

The "clean room" was only needed for the BIOS, because the IBM BIOS code was assumed to be protected by copyright.

I don't remember anyone ever making the argument that, while the box that houses the computer contains artistic expression, the computer itself doesn't, therefore other computer manufacturers could simply make an exact copy of IBM PC computers and just put them in a different box.

If there are no patents in the way, they very certainly could. This is the point of patents.
But in practice different manufacturers will source components from different suppliers and will look for ways to cut costs, etc. Also they may want to differentiate their products from the competition.

* company B would have to create their own NN - they wouldn't be able to just take company A's NN and resell it as their own

Nothing stops B from copying and reselling A's NN (if it is correct that there is no copyright on the NN).

[towforce]

If a second company could legally copy another company's NN (or NN weights file), then I would expect there to be precedence for this elsewhere in the machine world.

That assumption is already flawed because machine manufacturing is surrounded by more laws than just the copyright, e.g. the patent law. Preventing competitors from doing that is the main usage of the patent law in the first place.

Very few products have new patents on them, and anyway, patents are a description of something inventive - they've got nothing to do with another company making an exact copy of your machinery.

I'm usually very good at explaining what I mean, and I don't understand why I'm struggling in this thread. I'll try again:

* NNs (and their weight files) are part of software

* software is part of a machine

* once you understand why you can't just make EXACT copies of parts of another company's machine and sell them as your own, then you'll understand why you can't copy another company's NN and sell it as your own.

[Ras]

* once you understand why you can't just make EXACT copies of parts of another company's machine and sell them as your own, then you'll understand why you can't copy another company's NN and sell it as your own.

That's circular logic because presupposes that NNs are copyrightable - which is the claim under question. Patents or trademaks do not apply, after all.

[towforce]

* once you understand why you can't just make EXACT copies of parts of another company's machine and sell them as your own, then you'll understand why you can't copy another company's NN and sell it as your own.

That's circular logic because presupposes that NNs are copyrightable - which is the claim under question. Patents or trademaks do not apply, after all.

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

[Ras]

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

That's a non-sequitur. Other machine parts such as bios are protected by copyright while NNs may not be (that's the discussion!), or by patents while NNs are not.

[syzygy]

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

That's a non-sequitur. Other machine parts such as bios are protected by copyright while NNs may not be (that's the discussion!), or by patents while NNs are not.

Maybe towforce can come up with a SINGLE precedent of a court case that was won against a manufacturer of an exact copy of a machine part that was not or no longer protected by any intellectual property right and that fell outside passing off as defined on its Wikipedia page.

[dkappe]

We have a long way to go before IP and AI have an amicable resolution. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ke ... plications

[towforce]

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

That's a non-sequitur. Other machine parts such as bios are protected by copyright while NNs may not be (that's the discussion!), or by patents while NNs are not.

The fact that you keep throwing it back at me instead of attempting to answer tells me that:

1. You're not willing to discuss a point that doesn't fit with your world view

2. Per my point, in general, companies don't make exact copies of parts of another company's machinery (obviously there have been exceptions in other jurisdictions as there have been for all IP protection rules)

I therefore conclude that we're missing something important somewhere along the line. Finally, so that everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about, here's my point as simply as I can make it (Ras: no more twisting these words or hand-waving dismissal of them please!):

If copying another company's NN was viable behaviour then we'd expect precedent to exist in terms of companies making exact copies of other company's machine parts.

[syzygy]

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

That's a non-sequitur. Other machine parts such as bios are protected by copyright while NNs may not be (that's the discussion!), or by patents while NNs are not.

The fact that you keep throwing it back at me instead of attempting to answer tells me that:

1. You're not willing to discuss a point that doesn't fit with your world view

You are the one who is trying to argue a point which seems to be considerably outside your area of expertise.

2. Per my point, in general, companies don't make exact copies of parts of another company's machinery (obviously there have been exceptions in other jurisdictions as there have been for all IP protection rules)

Give an example of a court case that was won against a manufacturer of an exact copy of a machine part that was not/no longer protected by any intellectual property right and that fell outside passing off as defined on its Wikipedia page.

There are lots of ways to protect a product: copyrights, patents, design rights, etc. If you think companies tend not to use them, you are very wrong.

The only intellectual property right that conceivably applies to NNs is copyright. However, there are strong arguments against NNs being copyrightable.

[towforce]

That's the whole point: if NNs aren't protected, one would expect precedents of other machine parts being copied EXACTLY to exist!

That's a non-sequitur. Other machine parts such as bios are protected by copyright while NNs may not be (that's the discussion!), or by patents while NNs are not.

The fact that you keep throwing it back at me instead of attempting to answer tells me that:

1. You're not willing to discuss a point that doesn't fit with your world view

You are the one who is trying to argue a point which seems to be considerably outside your area of expertise.

I agree.

However, despite all the efforts to obfuscate it, my point is actually EXTREMELY simple:

1. An NN is a part of a machine

2. If there were no impediment to making exact copies of new machine parts, then I would have expected this to have happened many times before

2. Per my point, in general, companies don't make exact copies of parts of another company's machinery (obviously there have been exceptions in other jurisdictions as there have been for all IP protection rules).

Give an example of a court case that was won against a manufacturer of an exact copy of a machine part that was not/no longer protected by any intellectual property right and that fell outside passing off as defined on its Wikipedia page.

That's my point: I cannot do that because I'm simply not aware of it having happened (apart from in "far away" jurisdictions where IP is not respected), and my question is: why aren't manufacturers doing it more often if there's no legal impediment to doing it?

There are lots of ways to protect a product: copyrights, patents, design rights, etc. If you think companies tend not to use them, you are very wrong.

The only intellectual property right that conceivably applies to NNs is copyright. However, there are strong arguments against NNs being copyrightable.