[m0zg]

I don't think that's actually true. Lots of stuff gets published that could (and if the bean counters had their say _would_) be "hidden". But NONE of it is published by commercial labs before all the patents are filed. MS Research cranks out an amazing number of patents. As does Google Brain and Deepmind. Then they have this Mexican standoff and "license" patents to each other.

But _some_ select stuff does not get published. I know of at least two examples first hand: one at MS, one at Google. This is usually the case when publishing a paper would help large, direct competitors to partially or fully close staggering competitive gaps. As you can imagine Google doesn't publish a whole lot on the subject of search ranking, for example.

[bubblethink]

Isn't it just defensive ? Is there any instance of anyone using or licensing an ML patent ? Mostly people like IBM, MS, etc. were doing patents anyway for decades, and they continue to do so. So everyone else has to play the same game. I don't think there has been any big case involving patent infringement over ML/AI.

[m0zg]

It's "defensive" only until the company starts sliding financially, at which point it becomes _very_ offensive. That's how IBM got MS into this game: one day IBM lawyers showed up with an invoice at Bill Gates' office.

[senderista]

And a lot of stuff doesn't get published until the system described is already obsolete.