Cloud Hosting

According to the approach embraced by McRO and BASCOM, while machine learning algorithms bringing a slight improvement can pass the eligibility test, algorithms paving the way for a whole new technology can be excluded from the benefits of patent protection simply because there are no alternatives.

In the past decade or so, humanity has gone through drastic changes as Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as recommendation systems and voice assistants have seeped into every facet of our lives. Whereas the number of patent applications for AI inventions skyrocketed, almost a third of these applications are rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the majority of these rejections are due to the claimed invention being ineligible subject matter.

The inventive concept may be attributed to different components of machine learning technologies, such as using a new algorithm, feeding more data, or using a new hardware component. However, this article will exclusively focus on the inventions achieved by Machine Learning (M.L.) algorithms and the effect of the preemption test adopted by U.S. courts on the patent-eligibility of such algorithms.

Since the Alice decision, the U.S. courts have adopted different views related to the role of the preemption test in eligibility analysis. While some courts have ruled that lack of preemption of abstract ideas does not make an invention patent-eligible [Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc.], others have not referred to it at all in their patent eligibility analysis. [Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327]

Contrary to those examples, recent cases from Federal Courts have used the preemption test as the primary guidance to decide patent eligibility.

In McRO, the Federal Circuit ruled that the algorithms in the patent application prevent pre-emption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. The court based this conclusion on the evidence of availability of an alternative set of rules to achieve the automation process other than the patented method. It held that the patent was directed to a specific structure to automate the synchronization and did not preempt the use of all of the rules for this method given that different sets of rules to achieve the same automated synchronization could be implemented by others.

Similarly, The Court in BASCOM ruled that the claims were patent eligible because they recited a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering contentand they do not preempt all possible ways to implement the image-filtering technology.

The analysis of the McRO and BASCOM cases reveals two important principles for the preemption analysis:

Machine learning can be defined as a mechanism which searches for patterns and which feeds intelligence into a machine so that it can learn from its own experience without explicit programming. Although the common belief is that data is the most important component in machine learning technologies, machine learning algorithms are equally important to proper functioning of these technologies and their importance cannot be understated.

Therefore, inventive concepts enabled by new algorithms can be vital to the effective functioning of machine learning systemsenabling new capabilities, making systems faster or more energy efficient are examples of this. These inventions are likely to be the subject of patent applications. However, the preemption test adopted by courts in the above-mentioned cases may lead to certain types of machine learning algorithms being held ineligible subject matter. Below are some possible scenarios.

The first situation relates to new capabilities enabled by M.L. algorithms. When a new machine learning algorithm adds a new capability or enables the implementation of a process, such as image recognition, for the first time, preemption concerns will likely arise. If the patented algorithm is indispensable for the implementation of that technology, it may be held ineligible based on the McRO case. This is because there are no other alternative means to use this technology and others would be prevented from using this basic tool for further development.

For example, a M.L. algorithm which enabled the lane detection capability in driverless cars may be a standard/must-use algorithm in the implementation of driverless cars that the court may deem patent ineligible for having preemptive effects. This algorithm clearly equips the computer vision technology with a new capability, namely, the capability to detect boundaries of road lanes. Implementation of this new feature on driverless cars would not pass the Alice test because a car is a generic tool, like a computer, and even limiting it to a specific application may not be sufficient because it will preempt all uses in this field.

Should the guidance of McRO and BASCOM be followed, algorithms that add new capabilities and features may be excluded from patent protection simply because there are no other available alternatives to these algorithms to implement the new capabilities. These algorithms use may be so indispensable for the implementation of that technology that they are deemed to create preemptive effects.

Secondly, M.L. algorithms which are revolutionary may also face eligibility challenges.

The history of how deep neural networks have developed will be explained to demonstrate how highly-innovative algorithms may be stripped of patent protection because of the preemption test embraced by McRO and subsequent case law.

Deep Belief Networks (DBNs) is a type of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The ANNs were trained with a back-propagation algorithm, which adjusts weights by propagating the outputerror backwardsthrough the network However, the problem with the ANNs was that as the depth was increased by adding more layers, the error vanished to zero and this severely affected the overall performance, resulting in less accuracy.

From the early 2000s, there has been a resurgence in the field of ANNs owing to two major developments: increased processing power and more efficient training algorithms which made trainingdeep architecturesfeasible. The ground-breaking algorithm which enabled the further development of ANNs in general and DBNs in particular was Hintons greedy training algorithm.

Thanks to this new algorithm, DBNs has been applicable to solve a variety of problems that were the roadblock before the use of new technologies, such as image processing,natural language processing, automatic speech recognition, andfeature extractionand reduction.

As can be seen, the Hiltons fast learning algorithm revolutionized the field of machine learning because it made the learning easier and, as a result, technologies such as image processing and speech recognition have gone mainstream.

If patented and challenged at court, Hiltons algorithm would likely be invalidated considering previous case law. In McRO, the court reasoned that the algorithm at issue should not be invalidated because the use of a set of rules within the algorithm is not a must and other methods can be developed and used. Hiltons algorithm will inevitably preempt some AI developers from engaging with further development of DBNs technologies because this algorithm is a base algorithm, which made the DBNs plausible to implement so that it may be considered as a must. Hiltons algorithm enabled the implementation of image recognition technologies and some may argue based on McRO and Enfish that Hiltons algorithm patent would be preempting because it is impossible to implement image recognition technologies without this algorithm.

Even if an algorithm is a must-use for a technology, there is no reason to exclude it from patent protection. Patent law inevitably forecloses certain areas from further development by granting exclusive rights through patents. All patents foreclose competitors to some extent as a natural consequence of exclusive rights.

As stated in the Mayo judgment, exclusive rights provided by patents can impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention, by, for example, raising the price of using the patented ideas once created, requiring potential users to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing patents and pending patent applications, and requiring the negotiation of complex licensing arrangements.

The exclusive right granted by a patents is only one side of the implicit agreement between the society and the inventor. In exchange for the benefit of the exclusivity, inventors are required to disclose their invention to the public so this knowledge becomes public, available for use in further research and for making new inventions building upon the previous one.

If inventors turn to trade secrets to protect their inventions due to the hostile approach of patent law to algorithmic inventions, the knowledge base in this field will narrow, making it harder to build upon previous technology. This may lead to the slow-down and even possible death of innovation in this industry.

The fact that an algorithm is a must-use, should not lead to the conclusion that it cannot be patented. Patent rights may even be granted for processes which have primary and even sole utility in research. Literally, a microscope is a basic tool for scientific work, but surely no one would assert that a new type of microscope lay beyond the scope of the patent system. Even if such a microscope is used widely and it is indispensable, it can still be given patent protection.

According to the approach embraced by McRO and BASCOM, while M.L. algorithms bringing a slight improvement, such as a higher accuracy and higher speed, can pass the eligibility test, algorithms paving the way for a whole new technology can be excluded from the benefits of patent protection simply because there are no alternatives to implement that revolutionary technology.

Considering that the goal of most AI inventions is to equip computers with new capabilities or bring qualitative improvements to abilities such as to see or to hear or even to make informed judgments without being fed complete information, most AI inventions would have the higher likelihood of being held patent ineligible. Applying this preemption test to M.L. algorithms would put such M.L. algorithms outside of patent protection.

Thus, a M.L. algorithm which increases accuracy by 1% may be eligible, while a ground-breaking M.L. algorithm which is a must-use because it covers all uses in that field may be excluded from patent protection. This would result in rewarding slight improvements with a patent but disregarding highly innovative and ground-breaking M.L. algorithms. Such a consequence is undesirable for the patent system.

This also may result in deterring the AI industry from bringing innovation in fundamental areas. As an undesired consequence, innovation efforts may shift to small improvements instead of innovations solving more complex problems.

Image Source:Author: nils.ackermann.gmail.comImage ID:102390038

Read this article:
Effects of the Alice Preemption Test on Machine Learning Algorithms - IPWatchdog.com

According to PwC, AIs potential global economic impact will reach USD 15.7 trillion by 2030. However, the enterprises who look to deploy AI are often hampered by the lack of time, trust and talent. Especially, with the highly regulated sectors such as healthcare and finance, convincing the customers to imbibe AI methodologies is an uphill task.

Of late, the AI community has seen a sporadic shift in AI adoption with the advent of AutoML tools and introduction of customised hardware to cater to the needs of the algorithms. One of the most widely used AutoML tools in the industry is H2O Driverless AI. And, when it comes to hardware Intel has been consistently updating its tool stack to meet the high computational demands of the AI workflows.

Now H2O.ai and Intel, two companies who have been spearheading the democratisation of the AI movement, join hands to develop solutions that leverage software and hardware capabilities respectively.

AI and machine-learning workflows are complex and enterprises need more confidence in the validity of their AI models than a typical black-box environment can provide. The inexplicability and the complexity of feature engineering can be daunting to the non-experts. So far AutoML has proven to be the one stop solution to all these problems. These tools have alleviated the challenges by providing automated workflows, code ready deployable models and many more.

H2O.ai especially, has pioneered in the AutoML segment. They have developed an open source, distributed in-memory machine learning platform with linear scalability that includes a module called H2OAutoML, which can be used for automating the machine learning workflow, that includes automatic training and tuning of many models within a user-specified time-limit.

Whereas, H2O.ais flagship product Driverless AI can be used to fully automate some of the most challenging and productive tasks in applied data science such as feature engineering, model tuning, model ensembling and model deployment.

But, for these AI based tools to work seamlessly, they need the backing of hardware that is dedicated to handle the computational intensity of machine learning operations.

Intel has been at the forefront of digital revolution for over half a century. Today, Intel flaunts a wide range of technologies, including its Xeon Scalable processors, Optane Solid State Drives and optimized Intel software libraries that bring in a much needed mix of enhanced performance, AI inference, network functions, persistent memory bandwidth, and security.

Integrating H2O.ais software portfolio with hardware and software technologies from Intel has resulted in solutions that can handle almost all the woes of an AI enterprise from automated workflows to explainability to production ready code that can be deployed anywhere.

For example, H2O Driverless AI, an automatic machine-learning platform enables data science experts and beginners to streamline their AI tasks within minutes that usually take months. Today, more than 18,000 companies use open source H2O in mission-critical use cases for finance, insurance, healthcare, retail, telco, sales, and marketing.

The software capabilities of H2O.ai combined with hardware infrastructure of Intel, that includes 2nd Generation Xeon Scalable processors, Optane Solid State Drives and Ethernet Network Adapters, can empower enterprises to optimize performance and accelerate deployment.

Enterprises that are looking for increasing productivity while increasing the business value of to enjoy the competitive advantages of AI innovation no longer have to wait thanks to hardware backed AutoML solutions.

comments

Read more here:
Deploying Machine Learning Has Never Been This Easy - Analytics India Magazine

Protesters and police in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. (Getty Images)

When incidents of police brutality occur, typically departments enact police reforms and fire bad cops, but machine learning could potentially predict when a police officer may go over the line.

Rayid Ghani is a professor at Carnegie Mellon and joined Seattles Morning News to discuss using machine learning in police reform. Hes working on tech that could predict not only which cops might not be suited to be cops, but which cops might be best for a particular call.

AI and technology and machine learning, and all these buzzwords, theyre not able to to fix racism or bad policing, they are a small but important tool that we can use to help, Ghani said. I was looking at the systems called early intervention systems that a lot of large police departments have. Theyre supposed to raise alerts, raise flags when a police officer is at risk of doing something that they shouldnt be doing, like excessive use of force.

What level of privacy can we expect online?

What we found when looking at data from several police departments is that these existing systems were mostly ineffective, he added. If theyve done three things in the last three months that raised the flag, well thats great. But at the same time, its not an early intervention. Its a late intervention.

So they built a system that works to potentially identify high risk officers before an incident happens, but how exactly do you predict how somebody is going to behave?

We build a predictive system that would identify high risk officers We took everything we know about a police officer from their HR data, from their dispatch history, from who they arrested , their internal affairs, the complaints that are coming against them, the investigations that have happened, Ghani said.

Can the medical system and patients afford coronavirus-related costs?

What we found were some of the obvious predictors were what you think is their historical behavior. But some of the other non-obvious ones were things like repeated dispatches to suicide attempts or repeated dispatches to domestic abuse cases, especially involving kids. Those types of dispatches put officers at high risk for the near future.

While this might suggest that officers who regularly dealt with traumatic dispatches might be the ones who are higher risk, the data doesnt explain why, it just identifies possibilities.

It doesnt necessarily allow us to figure out the why, it allows us to narrow down which officers are high risk, Ghani said. Lets say a call comes in to dispatch and the nearest officer is two minutes away, but is high risk of one of these types of incidents. The next nearest officer is maybe four minutes away and is not high risk. If this dispatch is not time critical for the two minutes extra it would take, could you dispatch the second officer?

So if an officer has been sent to a multiple child abuse cases in a row, it makes more sense to assign somebody else the next time.

Thats right, Ghani said. Thats what that were finding is they become high risk It looks like its a stress indicator or a trauma indicator, and they might need a cool-off period, they might need counseling.

But in this case, the useful thing to think about also is that they havent done anything yet, he added. This is preventative, this is proactive. And so the intervention is not punitive. You dont fire them. You give them the tools that they need.

Listen to Seattles Morning News weekday mornings from 5 9 a.m. on KIRO Radio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to thepodcast here.

Excerpt from:
How machine learning could reduce police incidents of excessive force - MyNorthwest.com

The global Machine Learning in Finance Market is carefully researched in the report while largely concentrating on top players and their business tactics, geographical expansion, market segments, competitive landscape, manufacturing, and pricing and cost structures. Each section of the research study is specially prepared to explore key aspects of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. For instance, the market dynamics section digs deep into the drivers, restraints, trends, and opportunities of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. With qualitative and quantitative analysis, we help you with thorough and comprehensive research on the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. We have also focused on SWOT, PESTLE, and Porters Five Forces analyses of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market.

Leading players of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market are analyzed taking into account their market share, recent developments, new product launches, partnerships, mergers or acquisitions, and markets served. We also provide an exhaustive analysis of their product portfolios to explore the products and applications they concentrate on when operating in the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. Furthermore, the report offers two separate market forecasts one for the production side and another for the consumption side of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. It also provides useful recommendations for new as well as established players of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market.

Final Machine Learning in Finance Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this Market.

Machine Learning in Finance Market competition by top manufacturers/Key player Profiled:

Ignite LtdYodleeTrill A.I.MindTitanAccentureZestFinance

Request for Sample Copy of This Report @https://www.reporthive.com/request_sample/2167901

With the slowdown in world economic growth, the Machine Learning in Finance industry has also suffered a certain impact, but still maintained a relatively optimistic growth, the past four years, Machine Learning in Finance market size to maintain the average annual growth rate of 15 from XXX million $ in 2014 to XXX million $ in 2019, This Report analysts believe that in the next few years, Machine Learning in Finance market size will be further expanded, we expect that by 2024, The market size of the Machine Learning in Finance will reach XXX million $.

Segmentation by Product:

Supervised LearningUnsupervised LearningSemi Supervised LearningReinforced Leaning

Segmentation by Application:

BanksSecurities Company

Competitive Analysis:

Global Machine Learning in Finance Market is highly fragmented and the major players have used various strategies such as new product launches, expansions, agreements, joint ventures, partnerships, acquisitions, and others to increase their footprints in this market. The report includes market shares of Machine Learning in Finance Market for Global, Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, South America and Middle East & Africa.

Scope of the Report:The all-encompassing research weighs up on various aspects including but not limited to important industry definition, product applications, and product types. The pro-active approach towards analysis of investment feasibility, significant return on investment, supply chain management, import and export status, consumption volume and end-use offers more value to the overall statistics on the Machine Learning in Finance Market. All factors that help business owners identify the next leg for growth are presented through self-explanatory resources such as charts, tables, and graphic images.

Key Questions Answered:

Our industry professionals are working reluctantly to understand, assemble and timely deliver assessment on impact of COVID-19 disaster on many corporations and their clients to help them in taking excellent business decisions. We acknowledge everyone who is doing their part in this financial and healthcare crisis.

For Customised Template PDF Report:https://www.reporthive.com/request_customization/2167901

Table of Contents

Report Overview:It includes major players of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market covered in the research study, research scope, and Market segments by type, market segments by application, years considered for the research study, and objectives of the report.

Global Growth Trends:This section focuses on industry trends where market drivers and top market trends are shed light upon. It also provides growth rates of key producers operating in the global Machine Learning in Finance Market. Furthermore, it offers production and capacity analysis where marketing pricing trends, capacity, production, and production value of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market are discussed.

Market Share by Manufacturers:Here, the report provides details about revenue by manufacturers, production and capacity by manufacturers, price by manufacturers, expansion plans, mergers and acquisitions, and products, market entry dates, distribution, and market areas of key manufacturers.

Market Size by Type:This section concentrates on product type segments where production value market share, price, and production market share by product type are discussed.

Market Size by Application:Besides an overview of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market by application, it gives a study on the consumption in the global Machine Learning in Finance Market by application.

Production by Region:Here, the production value growth rate, production growth rate, import and export, and key players of each regional market are provided.

Consumption by Region:This section provides information on the consumption in each regional market studied in the report. The consumption is discussed on the basis of country, application, and product type.

Company Profiles:Almost all leading players of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market are profiled in this section. The analysts have provided information about their recent developments in the global Machine Learning in Finance Market, products, revenue, production, business, and company.

Market Forecast by Production:The production and production value forecasts included in this section are for the global Machine Learning in Finance Market as well as for key regional markets.

Market Forecast by Consumption:The consumption and consumption value forecasts included in this section are for the global Machine Learning in Finance Market as well as for key regional markets.

Value Chain and Sales Analysis:It deeply analyzes customers, distributors, sales channels, and value chain of the global Machine Learning in Finance Market.

Key Findings: This section gives a quick look at important findings of the research study.

About Us:Report Hive Research delivers strategic market research reports, statistical surveys, industry analysis and forecast data on products and services, markets and companies. Our clientele ranges mix of global business leaders, government organizations, SMEs, individuals and Start-ups, top management consulting firms, universities, etc. Our library of 700,000 + reports targets high growth emerging markets in the USA, Europe Middle East, Africa, Asia Pacific covering industries like IT, Telecom, Semiconductor, Chemical, Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Energy and Power, Manufacturing, Automotive and Transportation, Food and Beverages, etc. This large collection of insightful reports assists clients to stay ahead of time and competition. We help in business decision-making on aspects such as market entry strategies, market sizing, market share analysis, sales and revenue, technology trends, competitive analysis, product portfolio, and application analysis, etc.

Contact Us:

Report Hive Research

500, North Michigan Avenue,

Suite 6014,

Chicago, IL 60611,

United States

Website: https://www.reporthive.com

Email: [emailprotected]

Phone: +1 312-604-7084

See the rest here:
Trending News Machine Learning in Finance Market Key Drivers, Key Countries, Regional Landscape and Share Analysis by 2025|Ignite Ltd,Yodlee,Trill...