[dctoedt]

> It's interesting to see Google's AI principles [0,1] published on the same day as these patent applications. Of course, this could be unrelated and complete coincidence. However, this _could_ have been strategic depending on the possible breadth of what they are trying to claim. (And to be clear, I am not saying this is why they released these principles -- plenty of other reasons for that.)*

It's almost certainly not a coincidence. Patent applications with possible international impact are typically filed before any publication, so as to avoid forfeiting any potential foreign patent rights. [0] Patent attorneys get extremely busy before, e.g., trade shows, new-product announcements, etc. — they want to get applications on file to preserve foreign rights.

[0] E.g., https://patentable.com/invention-disclosure-and-patent-grace...

[wpennington]

Totally, you are 100% correct w.r.t. public disclosures and patent filings -- that you want to get the latter done before the former so as to preserve foreign rights outside of the US. Also, more broadly, so as to preserve any rights at all -- following the America Invents Act (AIA) the US is now in a first to file system (like the majority of the rest of the world), not a first to invent system [0,1].

In this case of Google that we are discussing, however, the patents have already been filed but not yet published -- thus, the public did not/could not know what the patents were. Patents publish some time after filing, often times 18mo after the filing date for the USPTO [1] but this timeline can vary for a number a reasons, e.g. an earlier priority date, etc [2].

That all said, much of the work here by Google has likely been disclosed already, but the existence of the patents and what was in them is generally new info for the public and industry.

The referenced AI principles post by Google discussed more about "values" and less about any given tech. That said, my original comment was aimed toward the possible notion of strategic PR (e.g., saying we are going to do 'good' with not just this tech, but also these patents which you are just learning about), not strategic IP (e.g., preserving defensibility for any specific tech).

[0] AIA via USPTO - https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation...

[1] TLDR of AIA - http://www.aipla.org/advocacy/congress/aia/Pages/summary.asp...

[2] USPTO on 18mo - https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-will-begin...

[3] WIPO on PCTs - http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html

[dctoedt]

> following the America Invents Act (AIA) the US is now in a first to file system

This is partly true. If Alice invents a widget and publishes details without filing a patent application, she still has a one-year grace period in which to file a U.S. patent application [1], and if she's successful she'll get only U.S. patent rights (plus a few other countries, I forget which). But whether or not Alice publishes before filing, the longer she waits, the greater the risk that Bob will independently invent the widget, without deriving it from Alice, and will file first. Even after the AIA, we still aren't a "first to file" system — we're a "first inventor to file" system.

[1] https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html

[dctoedt]

Ah — I didn't look at the dates and assumed that the publication was the same date as the patent applications' filing, as opposed to the same date as their publications. In the latter case, it would indeed be a coincidence.