Hacker News Reader

Comment by jug | Hacker News Reader

Good. It's like a company in biomedicine trying to trademark "RNA". I dislike how OpenAI are trying to hijack a term to describe a kind of language model for their products and cringed when they introduced "GPTs" and "Making your own GPT". I see what you're trying to do, OpenAI...

So, after a quick glance here -- OpenAI argued that a consumer may not realize this and what GPT means, trying to use this as a defense for hijacking the term for use in their product portfolio, but the attorney thankfully didn't find the argument very convincing due to vast and established Internet evidence. He also pointed out that it doesn't even matter if a user doesn't know specifically what the acronym "GPT" exactly means, and that it's enough that the general connection to AI and Q&A technology has already been established.

View on HN

I thought OpenAI was the first to develop and use the term GPT[1]. So maybe a more apt comparison than RNA would be PCR, which was a technique developed in a private lab and patented, even though it was published in scientific journals etc.

1. https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised...

Doesn't matter either way who invented it. This is trademark, not patent.

If they wanted a trademark, that needed to appear on copy from day 0. The paper is titled: "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training" and not "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training (TM)"

They ALSO would have needed to use a different generic term to refer to the technique. For example, Velcro always says things like "Velcro-brand hook-and-loop," and ALWAYS uses a generic term to refer to hook-and-loop when talking across brands. It ONLY uses "Velcro(tm)" to talk about their product specifically. OpenAI started using GPT generically.

Publications like this one, if anything, undermine OpenAI's case since they're using the term generically.

The decision is correct. Trademark law is used precisely to prevent this sort of thing: OpenAI can have a generic term or a trademark. The law is set up precisely to prevent a company from building their brand value by retroactively trademarking a generic term once relying on a community to get it established.

To be more blunt: I use "GPT" generically because they encouraged me to do so. That should not contribute brand value to OpenAI GPT-3 or OpenAI GPT-4.

Also, why would a “non-profit” need to trademark it?

Many do so in order to maintain their integrity and reputation. For example, the name Wikipedia and the Wikipedia logo are registered trademarks.

In the case of fundrising and sponsorship, it assures to sponsors the legitimity of that campaign, because there is no conflict with other organisation or company using the same name.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Non-profits seek trademarks for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with profit.

And, non-profits doesn't mean they don't do things that they profit from, it just means they aren't trying to achieve profits for their owners. Endowments are non-profits, but they most certainly are making investments to achieve profits for the purpose of pushing that money into charitable vehicles.

A non-profit may also want to prevent others from profiting from their work by using their trademarks without approval for private gain.

Having a trademark just means you are protecting a name, not that you are seeking to extract value, per se.

Non profit is a business structure not a designation meaning “no business acumen.” Many non profits are actually quite profitable and active businesses, but they have no beneficial owners, pay no dividends, etc, and often have some mission that’s in some way broadly beneficial. This exempts them from certain taxation and other benefits. But it absolutely doesn’t mean everything they do is done altruistically without material consideration and definitely doesn’t mean with no legal claims or recourse for protecting their works or identities.

Plus they still get to pay huge salaries.

Maybe because they need expensive skills

I'm sure the highly paid charity execs would say so. Trouble is, the charity space often suffers from a broken market feedback mechanism, where the people paying for the product are not the people consuming the product, and this can lead to a business structure that looks like a pure-play marketing machine hooked up to exec pockets with occasional leakage into a small amount of actual charity work.

"But the situation occurs in regular business too! Monopolies, oligopolies, etc happen when the market feedback mechanism breaks!"

Yeah, and we should go after those too. It's really astonishing the lengths to which people go to defend bad behavior.

Non profit doesn’t necessarily mean charity.

For instance, the life line company (“help me I’ve fallen and can’t get up”) is (or was) organized as a non profit. They sold devices and services at a decent margin. Their excess revenues went back to employees in wages and perks. Executives and founders especially enjoyed extravagant life styles.

I was going to say both Visa and Mastercard are non profit but apparently this changed in 2006.

I guess it makes sense like a "Got Milk?", or "the other white meat" for banks.

Like the charity Wikimedia, that needs 6-figures salaries to coordinate volunteers filling webpages.

Nobody with skills would be happy to be the one that represents Wikimedia for less than 780'000 USD right ?

Most people with the organizational skills to operate a complex enterprise demands a pretty significant compensation package. Even if you found someone to do it for considerably less once they’ve proven effective they would become highly sought after in the labor market and would be poached away leading to churn and turnover in roles that really benefit from stability over time. While it is likely there is someone who doesn’t mind living a life of austerity when capable securing of a much more comfortable lifestyle for them and their family, it can be really hard to find them and require a lot of churn in mishiring the talent and losing skilled talent due to inflicting non market bearing penury on them and their loved ones out of some weird morality not supported by the surrounding culture and society.

> Most people with the organizational skills to operate a complex enterprise demands a pretty significant compensation package

That is mainly USA, such people are pretty cheap in the rest of the world.

I have a friend who with their CPA got a job at a non profit and they were worried they would pigeon hole into a specific industry and the concept of non profit worried them about their career. My advice to them was non profit does not mean “not profitable to you.” Depending on the non profit salaries can be greatly outsized and often perks are outstanding. All that excess cash goes somewhere and some non profits enjoy enormous margins and lucrative markets, but the accounting and related rules are specialized.

To their execs. It’s basically a meme in non-profit world how poorly everyone outside the C-suite gets paid and how the non-profit “mission” is weaponized against workers in salary negotiations.

So other people can't pretend to be them or their products and do things like raise funds. Which is also the point of "for profit" trademarks

For the same reason Wikipedia needs a trademark, or any successful open source project. To prevent grifters from hitching a ride off your word and muddying the water / confusing users of your service or product

To prevent for profit companies from using it. The Olympic Rings and the Red Cross's Red Cross logo are both trademarked.

Velcro has an amusing campaign regarding their trademark:

https://www.velcro.com/original-thinking/the-velcro-brand-tr...

This is seriously the type of language that will get men to want to "abuse" the Velcro trademark more.

https://torrentfreak.com/iptv-anti-piracy-threats-may-increa...

Unlikely. The Velcro trademark has been so far gone for decades that I doubt there is a single person on the planet that knows it's the name of a company and not a generic term for hook and loop fastener.

The next company you'll see in this position is probably Google. I think that verb will outlive Google Search.

More importantly, knowing and caring are two different things.

I know that Velcro/Kleenex/Google are specific brands, but I don't really care - the common usage is so far gone that there's rarely a reason to use hook & loop fastener/tissue paper/internet search instead.

Hell, for some people, "iPad" is a semi-generic term for a tablet. (Though I don't get that one, personally.)

> Hell, for some people, "iPad" is a semi-generic term for a tablet. (Though I don't get that one, personally.)

I remember when the NFL first started using Microsoft Surface tablets during the broadcast, except the commentators would keep referring to them as iPads. By the next week's broadcast, every single commentator had a giant "Microsoft Surface" branded tablet cover in front of them at the desk and overall the logos were plastered everywhere.

> I doubt there is a single person on the planet that knows ...

Are we not persons on the planet?

Speak for yourself, human.

I always had the vague idea that probably Velcro was a trademark, but TIL that there's a company called Velcro too. I always thought Velcro was another DuPont product.

there is similar fervor around LEGO https://legonotlegos.com/

> If they wanted a trademark, that needed to appear on copy from day 0. The paper is titled: "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training" and not "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training (TM)"

While the (TM) is useful to alert people to your trademark claim, you are not required to use it to establish your trademark. Simply using a unique mark to identify your goods or services and being the first to do so is enough.

Then why did openAI fail here, in your view?

Because they didn't make any effort to treat this like a trade mark until after the term itself become generic to the public. If you want a trademark you need to be careful how you use it and how others use it to ensure it doesn't become a generic term. Once something is a generic term it is almost impossible to get it back. (it has been done: Xerox used to be the generic term people used for make a copy - but most of the effort was their competitors who for obvious reasons didn't want to use their competitors company name as a generic term)

If you want a trademark you need to defend it. That means you know the generic term and use that when required. That means when anyone uses your trademark in a generic way your lawyers are immediately sending letters. Check with a lawyer - there are a lot more details you have to get right.

Yeah, just because OpenAI has gotten away with using open source ideology for regulatory capture in the AI space, but that doesn't mean they can get away with it in the intellectual property space.

is it a generic term? when I think gpt I only think openAI's work

RNA, PCR, and GPT all have precisely the same problem: the acronyms are purely technical.

- ribonucleic acid

- polymerase chain reaction

- generative pretrained transformer

You can't trademark the phrase "polymerase chain reaction" because there are many types of polymerase chain reactions, not just the ones used for copying DNA. [ETA: specifically I mean "copying DNA at commercial scale" i.e. the patented biochemical engineering techniques.] Likewise a generative neural network using pre-training with a transformer architecture is simply too generic to trademark "generative pretrained transformer." And if you can't trademark the phrase you can't trademark the acronym.

I endorse this analysis.

Sincerely,

Your local IP attorney.

Is this actually true though? KFC is able to trademark their name and acronym (I believe their trademark is for the acronym officially), even though they’re selling Kentucky-style fried chicken?

What about International Business Machine?

IBM doesn't sell products called "international business machines" and hold a trademark on that product name, which would force competing manufacturers to call them "devices for transcontinental enterprise" etc. IBM is a business name, that's a different thing. More importantly, nobody calls computers "international business machines," that name reflects IBM's 19th-century origins, so having a trademark on "International Business Machines" has no impact on competing businesses.

A hypothetical 1930s computing company called Central Processor Units would have probably changed its name in the 1950s, since "CPU" wouldn't be trademarkable and their brand name wouldn't be worth very much. (A trademark on "CPU" would be needlessly detrimental to other computer manufacturers, or at best confusing, especially after the von Neumann architecture became the universal standard.) Of course in this alternate universe maybe CPUs would have been called something else, and maybe if IBM never existed we would be calling computers "business machines."

IANAL but I think it's a mistake to apply "If A then B" rules to this stuff and try to invalidate reasonable guidelines based on specific counterexamples. Judges need to consider how language is actually used in context by the people working in those areas. This is why the USPTO cited so many businesses and practitioners using GPT in a generic context.

The term 'GPT' was first used in the BERT paper to refer to Generic Pre-trained Transformers. [0]

> The fine-tuning approach, such as the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (OpenAI GPT) (Radford et al., 2018), introduces minimal task-specific parameters, and is trained on the downstream tasks by simply fine-tuning all pre-trained parameters.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

BERT paper is from 11 Oct 2018 and the OpenAI paper it was referring to "Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training" is from 11 Jun 2018: https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised...

Yes, but that paper that you link to doesn't ever call it GPT or Generative Pretrained Transformers. It talks about training Transformers with Generative Pretraining, both of which are pre-existing concepts by this point.

I also looked on the OpenAI website in Sep 2018 and could find no reference to GPT or Generative Pretrained Transformers, so I think OP might be right about BERT using it first.

http://web.archive.org/web/20180923011305/https://blog.opena...

That paper is using a pre-existing term "Generative Pretraining" [0] and applying it to Transformers (a Google innovation [1]). As far as I can see from a search, they don't even use the term GPT or Generative Pretrained Transformers in that paper, and they don't in the accompanying blog post either [2]. A sibling [3] claims that the BERT paper in Oct 2018 was the first to use the term GPT to describe what OpenAI built, and that sounds reasonable since a cursory look through the Sep 2018 archive of openai.com turns up nothing.

[0] See this 2012 example: http://cs224d.stanford.edu/papers/maas_paper.pdf

[1] https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547de...

[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20180923011305/https://blog.opena...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39381802

Yeah, but my 2 year old Generative Potty-Trained Transformer needs an acronym too!

Seriously, like TLA domain names and other TLA acronyms, there just aren't enough to allow trademark. Imagine, if 5 letter LASER had been trademarked? Would that have also covered LASIK (Laser assisted sub-epithelial keratectomy)?

Next they try to copyright CHAT perhaps. Indeed very irritating.

How did Microsoft trademark Windows? When computer windows existed?

Presumably because "windows" wasn't a term used to describe an OS. They didn't trademark "OS".

Windows didn't start out as an OS. It started out as a windowing system for DOS.

That's the landscape all the trademark suits happened in.

Footnote: Windows 95/98/ME was still DOS + Windows bundled in one box. Windows XP was the first consumer operating system derived from Windows NT (which was in fact a proper operating system in its own right). Even Windows NT was trademark-iffy. It was a play on VMS (get it? If not, increment each letter).

windows 2000 was first

No, Windows NT was first in the OS line. Windows 2000 was NT 5.0. There was no home / consumer / client version of Windows 2000. The versions were: Professional, Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter.

Windows XP was the first convergence version, where the home / consumer / client line transitioned to the NT codebase (with Windows Server 2003 still continuing the NT server market line, but now on a common codebase, and with some of the more workstation uses moving down to the XP line).

i meant that 2k preceded xp. i had a copy of 2k professional on a couple of consumer sony vaios, bought in high-street stores i.e. consumer products.

shrug And NT was on plenty of high-end devices too. Most e.g. developers and sysadmins ran NT since it came out, over the 95/98/ME line. 95/98/ME were still the consumer brands.

At the time, there was a split between "desktop" and "workstation" which no longer really exists. High-end consumers also sometimes bought machines from e.g. SGI, Digital, HP, or Sun. That whole class of machine kind of disappeared, and now there's a smooth gradient from a $100 computer to one with 196GB RAM, an array of professional NVidia GPUs, and 128 CPU cores.

Workstations had memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, access controls, proper networking stacks, more sophisticated memory address spaces, were multiuser by design, etc.

no, this is all nonsense. really, did any consumer buy an SGI workstation? or a Sun?

i mean, i used both at the time, but they were bought for me at ludicrous prices by the companies i worked/consulted for.

windows 2k was something you could buy that ran on consumer grade hardware, and was bloody good. it morphed into xp, which is my point about which came first.

> no, this is all nonsense. really, did any consumer buy an SGI workstation? or a Sun?

Yes. I had plenty of friends who did. Mostly from, very likely, similar companies like the ones you worked / consulted for when they upgraded. It turns out that despite the ludicrous prices new, last-generation workstations sold for a song, or were often just found in trash piles.

Corporate workstation markets aren't big into buying used. Supply and demand.

At the time, the gap between a modern Wintel and a previous-generation DEC Alpha (for compute) or IRIX (for 3D) was quite large, and not in Intel's favor. X + twm or similar was much more snappy than either NT or XP. And you had the full power of Unix.

Also: Multihead. Optical mice. Etc.

I had one particular a friend -- a student without more income than you'd expect of a student -- who had a whole roomful of older Suns, and probably a few Vaxes (which everyone hated).

From Microsoft's perspective, you're right, but for all intents and purposes, Windows 2000 Professional was a consumer operating system. It was better than 98 as a consumer OS and more functional than NT for everything else. Libraries and schools deployed it. The majority of gamers, enthusiasts, and tech people used it. From 2000-2002 it was practically the only Windows OS anyone used. Plenty of people continued to use it after XP's release, due to XP's various issues and (let's be honest) infantilizing theme.

The majority of gamers did not use it. I remember that transition, and the numerous compatibility issues that games specifically had on Win2K, since that was exactly the kind of software that was the most likely to play fast and loose with memory protection etc (also, nascent DRM in form of CD copy protection). I personally ran Win2K for several months before reverting for this reason, and so did most of my gamer friends.

I do recall the win2k-specific compatibility issues with games. However, everyone I knew was still using it. In reality I think it might have become more popular just before XP, as compatibility issues were worked out. XP adoption was very slow though.

This might be some kind of regional difference. I remember that WinXP adoption by people who were already on Win2K was blazing fast for the consumer market (colleges and businesses were a different story). But most consumers went straight Win98->XP, or in some cases 98->ME->XP.

NT/OU VMS/WNT to save you an increment.

Thank you for that. It's the first time I saw the connection: WNT -> VMS.

It's like HAL, the computer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL is before IBM.

Wow is that on purpose??

Also MS (as in Microsoft) comes before NT, so you can also interpret it as NT coming after the "traditional" MS Windows?

Apparently not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Naming

What exactly do you think this page says and what is part of that comment is “apparently not” in response to?

Here's what the page says:

> It has been suggested that Dave Cutler intended the initialism "WNT" as a play on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand. One of the original NT developers, Mark Lucovsky, states that the name was taken from the original target processor—the Intel i860, code-named N10 ("N-Ten").

I can't figure out what this is referring to, though. Maybe you can do better.

The history, as I recall it:

- VMS developer develops WNT, playfully incrementing each letter of his prior OS from former employer, based on similar concepts.

- Corporate lawyers.

- Obvious explanation vehemently denied.

- Alternative explanations abound.

You can believe what you want. I chose Occam's Razor.

There are plenty of generic names in software that refer to some element of the product.

Apple has a word processor called Pages, while Microsoft has one called Word. There were many applications before these that operated on pages and words.

If the trademark is “Microsoft Windows”, it’s just as specific as “Apple Pages”.

I couldn't tell -- which of these is trademarked?

  - Microsoft Word
  - Microsoft Teams
  - Microsoft 365
  - Microsoft Office 
  - Apple Pages

I searched here, but didn't know how to interpret the results: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

Microsoft’s own list (https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RW... - PDF warning) - while it explicitly says it is non-exhaustive - doesn’t appear to claim ‘Word’ or any variant of it - only the word icons and logos. From your list it lists Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Teams and Office 365, but not Microsoft Office.

Thanks to jameshart's list, and the search you provided I found:

- Windows: No Microsoft needed https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74090419&caseSearchType=U... - Microsoft Teams: Needs Microsoft https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87687687&caseSearchType=U... - Nothing for Word - Microsoft 365: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87640393&caseSearchType=U... - No Microsoft Office, but Office 365: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85387679&caseSearchType=U...

Trademarks don’t apply to all contexts.

There was an action. It barely went Microsoft's way. You can pull on this reference trail:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/we-own-windows-trademark-micro...

I believe the problem is that "Window System" is generic (as in X Window System, often referred to as X-Windows). That made it hard, but not impossible, for Microsoft to defend "Windows." After enough appeals, courts decided "Window" and "Windows" aren't the same thing.

Thank you for often referring to it as X-Windows.

-The Window Management

https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398...

>He also pointed out that it doesn't even matter if a user doesn't know specifically what the acronym "GPT" exactly means, and that it's enough that the general connection to AI and Q&A technology has already been established.

Maybe I'm just an ancient wreck of a computer nerd, but my first understanding of GPT was "Grand Partition Table" as a GNU joke/meme/misunderstanding for "GUID Partition Table", and to this day I can not redefine or re-remember it to whatever the hell OpenAI wants it to mean.

No one knows what word the T in Mr T stands for, but everyone knows who it stands for.

Good. Now they are forced to finally give it a proper name.

Yeah, ChatGPT is such a clinical name for a consumer facing app. Especially considering how easy AI stuff is to anthropomorphize. Google had the right idea with Bard and Gemini.

I would think they would be able to trademark ChatGPT.

yes, they shouldn't have let an engineer name it.

I love how terrible the name is from a branding perspective. It actually makes it feel more legit like a new tech rather than yet another wannabe assistant. And from what I can see, few have heard of Gemini, Bard, Cortana, Copilot, or Jeeves compared to ChatGPT, which has something of the charm of R2D2 or C3PO.

ChatGPT was never intended/expected by OpenAI to be a big deal in of itself. GPT-3 had been a big step up in capability from GPT-2, but of course wasn't getting any attention outside of the ML world since it wasn't something people could actually use. OpenAI built ChatGPT (says Altman) basically just to showcase GPT-3 since nobody else had bothered to do it. I don't think they were expecting the public to be so enthralled with it and actually find so many useful things to do with it.

And yet I suspect it’s the only one my parents may recognize as an AI product.

Is it so terrible then? "GPT" has a nice ring to it, especially considering that it wasn't meant to become a household name - before ChatGPT blew up, only people who were interested in the AI field knew what GPT was at all.

Honestly, it feels a lot more straightforward to me, which is what I like - it's named after what it is, and isn't slathered in marketing grease, where every word is optimized to be the most average Joe-friendly. I'd take ChatGPT over Funky Happy Little Guy Arthur Intelli (get it, it's just like a real person) every day of the week.

I mean, I would have accepted if Google or the original researchers involved wanted to trademark it, since they paid for/did all the work.

But OAI has nothing to do with "attention is all you need".

OpenAI came up with the term Generative Pre-Training with the paper introducing what is now called GPT-1. Not arguing that they should own a trademark for it but saying they are “hijacking” the term is disingenuous.

It's a pretty dumb acronym though since it's doubly redundant.

The "T" is the only descriptive bit. The transformer is inherently a generative architecture - a sequence predictor/generator, so "generative" adds nothing to the description. All current neural net models are trained before use, so "pretrained" adds nothing either.

It's like calling a car an MPC - a mobile pre-assembled car.

No, they took a pre-existing term "Generative Pretraining"[0] and applied it to Transformers (a Google innovation [1]) to get Generative Pretrained Transformers [2]. Even if you looked at the full name, that paper doesn't use GPT or Generative Pretrained Transformers at all from what I can tell, this commenter [3] claims that the name was first used in the BERT paper.

[0] See this 2012 example: http://cs224d.stanford.edu/papers/maas_paper.pdf

[1] https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547de...

[2] https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39381802

Shilling for a multi billion dollar corporation makes you look like a fool and even more so when clearly they are on the wrong side of the argument here

Descriptive terms cannot be trademarks, for obvious reasons. Corporations are not permitted to own the English language.

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/strong-trademarks

Twitter went the extreme way... they hijacked a letter... Alphabet is not much better.

As much as I don't really have an issue with what Musk did to Twitter mainly because I don't use it, X is a shitty name. Could've made a cool new name like Phaser or XLog or something.

the worst part is that he owns x.com and is not using it.

I expect he's kind of buggered there. He likes the X name for more than just twitter so he won't want to lose control of it. At the same time twitter would be hard pressed to justify using a domain they don't control especially after the wework scandal (or a small part of it) about the same thing.

He owns 100% of twitter (indirectly), there isn't any other share holder. this can't be compared to wework.

Sure, but twitter is not financialy stable and if it goes bankrupt then it's not Musk who decides what to do with a gifted x.com; it's used in a way that makes twitter the most value for the shareholders not the majority shareholeder. And as i said (with reguard to wework) if it's not gifted and with the knowledge of the abuses that a shareholder who is lending(and by lending i mean any convoluted contract that leaves Musk in control of it) a company a key asset can inflict on a company, then it's easy for minority shareholders to sue or even agencies to step in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com