Schmidhuber is a prolific flag-planter who is notorious for publicly raising a stink when he deems he should've been cited, but wasn't. It's happened enough that it's now a meme in the ML community.
It's important to mention that Schmidhuber is usually correct, in that his lab has been decades ahead in both theory and proofs-of-concept. The reason his lab is so under-cited is that his lab made these advances before the hardware to practically do it was available. Now that the techniques can be run, it's the people running them that tend to get all the credit for being "first".
You present this statement as fact when it is still highly debated. A lot of researchers will claim a popular new approach is a reformulation of experiments they did X years ago. It's usually best to see it as a spectrum where some idea are on the same axis, where one end is "totally different" and the other is "renamed approached".