Comment by freejazz
23 days ago
Are you saying Mistral didn't invest a lot of money in discovering the invention this patent covers? I'd bet they'd say otherwise. How is the patent office supposed to tell the difference?
I don't think a "pay-to-play" system works. There's already trade secrets that allow corporations to invest lots of money in protecting things that aren't even inventions. You just seem like you're trying to figure which patents are good or bad. But if a patent is widely infringed, by the same kind of logic, it must have tremendous value as an invention.
The "invention" was first published in 2024, by Chinese researchers: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01030
Beyond that, it's a trivial batching pattern. Any remotely competent systems engineer developing an agent would immediately reach for it, it's the most basic tool in the toolbox to deal with latency. If Mistral "invested a lot of money in discovering" this, man I'm in the wrong line of work.
You are still missing my point. It does not matter - at all - whether an idea has "value as an invention". All that matter is whether it cost a lot of money to come to that invention and whether that cost is worth is worth protection to encourage further research.