[HN Gopher] OpenAI has applied for "GPT" trademark with USPTO
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI has applied for "GPT" trademark with USPTO
Author : amrrs
Score : 146 points
Date : 2023-04-24 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tmsearch.uspto.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (tmsearch.uspto.gov)
| jameslevy wrote:
| Hopefully they will publicly commit to only using this trademark
| defensively if granted. In other words, to give OpenAI the
| benefit of the doubt here, they may just want to prevent someone
| else from trademarking "GPT" and taking legal action against
| them.
| dude3 wrote:
| I am hopeful they rename the company as well and remove "Open".
| It seems all they are doing is setting up a walled garden.
| amelius wrote:
| Does this mean that you can't write a scientific paper and refer
| to GPT without using the (tm) symbol on it?
| PeterisP wrote:
| Nominative reference to OpenAI's GPT would not be restricted,
| however, if you'd want to assert that the thing you made in
| your experiment is GPT or GPT-like, that might be iffy.
| function_seven wrote:
| No. You can use trademarked terms all you want in all sorts of
| writings. What you can't do is _trade_ using that name. Merely
| discussing a trademarked product is always allowed. And the
| (tm) symbol is for unregistered trademarks, whereas (r) is used
| for registered marks. In either case, these symbols are used by
| the company that owns or claims the marks, or by affiliates who
| agree to mark them as such when licensing the marks.
|
| I am not even remotely a lawyer so this is all just, like, what
| I think I know.
| verdverm wrote:
| Wonder what will happen at the intersection of things like
| "nanoGPT" by karpathy
|
| Will that project require renaming (among the thousands of
| others), or will the existence of so many mean that "GPT" is
| generic at this point?
|
| https://huggingface.co/models?sort=downloads&search=gpt
| shon wrote:
| A filing date of 12/27/23 makes me think they're either a little
| surprised at the popularity or not super-strong at biz-ops.
| pianoben wrote:
| Or they're zealous dogfooders, and had ChatGPT(tm) fill out the
| application itself :)
| AbuAssar wrote:
| it is their mistake that they didn't choose a good name for
| ChatGPT or for gpt3 or 4
|
| thay already have dalle and codex they should have given the
| chatbot a more patentable name
| seydor wrote:
| that was a long time ago, no? They have also applied for GPT-3,
| GPT-4, but not GPT-5
|
| I don't see the point though, it's not like some amazing name
| PeterisP wrote:
| They applied for GPT-3 back at december 2020; however, the
| trademark application for "GPT" (without the numbers) is a
| relatively new one, from december 2022.
| discordianfish wrote:
| Call it playing devil's advocate here but given all the scam
| around "SomethingGPT" I find it reasonable to assume they try to
| trademark it mainly to prevent this.
| amrrs wrote:
| For those unaware - GPT stands for Generative pre-trained
| transformers (GPT). It's a type of a deep neural network
| architecture that builds on top of Transformers which was
| released by Google researchers. I'm wondering what would happen
| if someone copyrights "Transformers" now :-/
| breck wrote:
| Not that it matters much, but I'm curious who first coined the
| specific "GPT" term?
|
| The first occurrence of that particular term I can find on
| Google Scholar is in 2019 ("Documentation is all you need"
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Generative+pre-
| train...)
|
| Edit: it looks like it was OpenAI. (Radford et al, 2018).
| anxrn wrote:
| Yes, this paper [1] introduced the term.
|
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h.
| ..
| runnerup wrote:
| Weird. The term "Generative pretraining" seems to also
| exist in this 2016 proceeding from 2 years prior: https://u
| i.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160202644D/abstra...
|
| Google Trends shows it first got searched for in measurable
| quantity back in 2008.
| reaperman wrote:
| Here's "generative pretaining" in an IEEE publication
| from 2012. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/DNN-2
| 012-proof.pdf
|
| Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything
| to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after
| he wrote this. Here's an earlier publication from
| January, 2012 talking about Hinton's 2011 "Generative
| pretraining" work: https://www.microsoft.com/en-
| us/research/publication/three-c...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have
| anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11
| years after he wrote this.
|
| But they're not applying to trademark "generative
| pretraining". They're only applying to trademark GPT,
| which seems (I have very limited knowledge if there are
| other competing uses of the term) reasonable given that
| most people associate "GPT" with specific AI
| implementations created by OpenAI.
|
| There were other "business machine" companies that
| existed 100 years ago, but that is very different from
| trademarking "IBM".
| mhink wrote:
| Interestingly, the record for OpenAI's application (for
| "GPT") has a note under "Goods and Services" that reads:
| "FIRST USE: 20181000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20181000" [1]
|
| The paper "Improving Language Understanding by Generative
| Pre-Training" appears to have been released on June 11, 2018.
| [2]
|
| 1: It looks like I can't link directly to it, but it should
| be pretty easy to find by searching for "GPT" at the parent's
| link
|
| 2: https://openai.com/research/language-unsupervised
| gpm wrote:
| I was curious and discovered that Google has a (non-AI,
| advertising related) product called GPT that has existed for
| ages, here's a reference from 2015
| https://github.com/davidecantoni/googletag
|
| I'm not sure if the industry is similar enough that this will
| be a problem for OpenAI (I suspect the fact that people are
| using GPT to refer to generative pre-trained transformer's in
| general is more of an issue for this application).
|
| GPT partition tables also come to mind.
| hgsgm wrote:
| There are many many overlapping trademarks on initialisms.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Good find. As the other commenter noted, however,
| trademarks are limited to the narrow field to which they
| apply. So I'm assuming OpenAI will be successful in getting
| a trademark for GPT _in the field of generative AI_ , but
| it will be limited to that scope.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| "GPT, like Geppetto"
|
| Geppetto carved a puppet of wood, And brought it to life as
| best he could. Geppetto's dreams, so long ago, Still echo in
| our quest to know, Can we create a being so smart, That it
| rivals the workings of the heart?
| PeterisP wrote:
| It's not copyright, it's trademark. It doesn't affect the
| ability of others to build GPT-like models, but it would
| prohibit others from calling whatever they build 'somethingGPT'
| or 'GPT-5'.
|
| And if someone manages to trademark "transformers" (which IMHO
| is totally unlikely to succeed for multiple reasons), well then
| we'd shrug and call them something else, that wouldn't prohibit
| anyone from making or using transformer models.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Lawsuits in disguise.
| lrei wrote:
| Transformer is the architecture. "Generative Pretrained" is
| just a term made up by the author to mean what everyone called
| for decades before and will call for decades after "Language
| Modelling". It was just a new way of saying "Language Modelling
| Transformer" that sounded cooler to the author and gave it cool
| initials. Coming up with cool names for models is hard.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It's a trademark application, not a copyright application.
| Quite different. You see copyrighted material is that which a
| GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or
| protections. While a GPT trademark, on the other hand, is an
| underhanded attempt to leverage that same disregarded legal
| protection to secure an exclusive brand for itself, in spite of
| existing uses of the generic acronym.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained
| on, without any regards to those rights or protections_
|
| AI's do not qualify as entities that can claim copy rights or
| protections, which ironically makes them not qualify as
| entities that can infringe copy rights or protections either.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Good thing AI's are owned by companies that are fully
| culpable for their monetized product's output, then.
| [deleted]
| zvolsky wrote:
| Unlike copyright, trademarks are used to protect consumers
| from misleading products that pretend to be the real thing.
| hgsgm wrote:
| In this case the trademark is to mislead consumers into
| thinking that Altman AI's GPT is the only one of its kind.
| zvolsky wrote:
| Perhaps ChatGPT wasn't the best name for a product and
| OpenAI would have gone with something more trademarkable
| if they knew it would become such a hit. Still, my
| comment above is a simple application of Hanlon's razor.
| verdverm wrote:
| Agreed, GPT has become too common for a trademark to be
| approved. It can even be revoked for becoming too common
| of a word for something, like "escalator" had happen many
| years ago.
|
| https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-
| tradem...
| johndhi wrote:
| low key funny post
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| So the first one is a positive while the second is a
| negative?
|
| And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of
| copyrighted material they consumed. It's not their fault
| random people on the internet don't understand what those
| rights are.
| [deleted]
| ben_w wrote:
| They do different things. Trademarks protect consumers from
| rip-off copies pretending to be what they want, copyright
| protects content creators from rip-off copies that
| genuinely are what consumers want.
| bombolo wrote:
| > And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of
| copyrighted material they consumed.
|
| Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough
| to violate and do what they want, since they aren't
| violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Feel free to cite while they violated. People are really
| quick to claim this but can't back it up or grab one of
| two sentences from one of the copyright statutes and
| claim it's a clear violation without any understanding of
| what they just copied.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| I hope someone trademarks "Transformer". It's the stupidest
| name ever. The entire purpose of all code is to transform data.
| See 15 years of data oriented design discussion.
|
| If I ever invent a specific ML design I'm going to call it
| "computer". Because that's as terrible of a name as
| "transformer".
| ben_w wrote:
| "Computer" has been trade marked several times, for example:
| https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-
| tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...
|
| As has "Transformer": https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-
| tmtext/page/Results
|
| Or, y'know, "Apple", "Orange", "Blackberry", "Windows", etc.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| And your point is what exactly?
|
| Literally every ML model is a transformer. Every single one
| of them. All of them are transformers. Using the word
| "transformer" to refer to a specific architecture is
| therefore absurd.
|
| This is very different than naming a computer company Apple
| or Blackberry.
| ben_w wrote:
| No stranger than Windows, given WIMP, even if you want to
| disregard the link to the trademarks for "transformer"
| (which I now realise doesn't work because the URL doesn't
| contain the search term, so here's one item from that
| list: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-
| tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...)
|
| Trademarks are just like this, always have been, probably
| always will be.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Hasbro might have something to say about that.
| neilv wrote:
| Emergent behavior is more than meets the eye.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Not really, trademarks are industry-specific, and having a
| registered trademark in another industry where there is no
| reasonable confusion is not an obstacle.
|
| For example, "Oracle" is a valid registered trademark for
| cigars and for archery bow sights and for many, many other
| things, despite also being a trademark for one of the most
| litigious firms in the software industry.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Are they industry specific? Monster Energy has a history of
| suing for trademark infringement over the word "Monster" in
| video game titles. Companies have caved to their requests.
| Unsure if that was due to validity or lack of willing to
| pay legal fees.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/monster-energy-tried-pok-
| mon-22450025...
| ska wrote:
| Yes, they are. Sometimes the lines become problematic.
|
| A famous example is Apple Computer and Apple Corps (the
| Beatles music holding company) with a long history of
| arguing about lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_
| Corps_v_Apple_Computer
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, they are definitely industry specific. Which is why
| both Best Buy and your grocery store can sell Apples.
|
| Monster has been involved in esports previously.
|
| https://www.monsterenergy.com/gaming
| jameshart wrote:
| They probably have some claim to trademark rights in the
| fields of robotics and cybernetics.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| They are applied for in various bewildering categories so
| yes, kind of industry specific. I've always found the
| categories to be pretty bizarre and of course you can apply
| in multiple categories.
|
| The key with trademarks is whether or not use/application
| of a trademark is "likelihood of confusion"[0].
|
| So yeah, I can call my hardware store GPT and OpenAI can
| have GPT trademarked because there's no way someone could
| confuse them as the same thing. That's of course an easy
| example and if this trademark is issued anything even
| remotely touching AI/ML using the three letters "GPT" is
| probably infringing.
|
| What's really ridiculous about this is the execs at OpenAI
| didn't see this coming - I think trademark application for
| GPT is going to be challenging while simultaneously making
| them look like jerks.
|
| Plus, GPT is a non-sensical acronym to 99% of their market
| so other than the recognition they've created in calling it
| that there's no reason for this issue. They would have been
| much, much better off calling their GPTs and GPT-related
| products something (anything) that's actually unique and
| easily trademarked.
|
| [0] - https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-
| confusion
| kube-system wrote:
| There are some Transformers games, I haven't looked it up
| but I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro had one for "computer
| software".
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| "Transformers" is already trademarked by Hasbro:
|
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76051283&caseType=SERIAL_...
|
| Maybe they will create ChatGPT-powered Autobot and Decepticon
| toys?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| that term has been in use for decades
|
| e.g.,
|
| https://www.digikey.com/en/products/category/transformers/11
| kube-system wrote:
| Doesn't matter. Trademarks are product/service specific.
| slazien wrote:
| OpenAI didn't provide the right type of evidence, so the
| trademark request got dismissed:
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97733259&docI...
| (probably until they try again).
|
| Apparently, they... didn't even pay the petition fee
| wskish wrote:
| It was the "petition to make special" (something like a request
| to speed up the process) that was dismissed, not the trademark
| application.
|
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97733259&docI...
| madrox wrote:
| OpenAI has stumbled at every step apart from "make something
| really good that people like." DALL-E access was over-controlled
| and they lost a lot of mindshare to competitors. In the case of
| ChatGPT, I doubt they even thought about what they would call
| this thing before releasing it.
|
| Of course it's inevitable they'd try to trademark this now, but
| it's clear all of this is an afterthought. It really leaves me
| feeling like OpenAI doesn't know what they're doing outside of
| making really good AI.
| gkoberger wrote:
| This is... well, this is one take.
|
| ChatGPT is the fastest growing app of all time, and almost
| everyone in the US knows what it is. It's absolutely dominating
| people's mindshare.
| Uehreka wrote:
| I'm seeing a lot of misunderstandings about how trademark works,
| so just to set the record straight:
|
| (As usual, IANAL, and I only know about US trademark law, but
| many countries have signed IP treaties with the US, so it's
| probably at least similar in most places)
|
| - Trademark is very different from copyright. Copyright stops you
| from copying something, trademark only stops you from pretending
| to be (or be associated with) the person/company the mark
| represents.
|
| - That's the purpose in the end: Trademark protects consumers
| from being scammed by imposters. And it's pretty well-scoped in
| terms of not doing anything else.
|
| - Trademark is much harder for companies to get than copyright,
| and much easier for them to lose. A company must demonstrate that
| the average consumer is likely to associate the mark with them
| and them alone. They must sue anyone who infringes on the mark to
| demonstrate that they are still protecting it. They can lose
| protection at any time if the public largely stops associating
| them with the mark.
|
| - Trademarks often apply very narrowly, which is why products in
| other markets can still be called "GPT" if a consumer wouldn't
| likely confuse the two. OpenAI wouldn't get to "own those three
| letters", but they would be the only people allowed to use those
| three letters in the brand name of an AI model (or however the
| PTO decides to scope it).
|
| - Trademarks by definition MUST be non-functional. A car company
| can't trademark the arrangement of gears in their engine, but
| they CAN trademark the paint color if no one else is using that
| particular color and consumers associate it with their brand.
|
| - A company doesn't need to "invent" the thing they are named
| after. Apple didn't invent apples, Amazon didn't invent the
| Amazon. It's certainly not a great idea to try and get a
| trademark on a name that was previously used for something else,
| but if you can demonstrate that consumers now associate the name
| with your product you may be able to get protection.
|
| - And if you can't demonstrate that consumers generally (it
| doesn't have to be all consumers, but it needs to be a lot)
| associate the name or mark with your product, then you don't get
| protection.
| yakkityyak wrote:
| Will always be GUID Partition Table to me.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This seems overly broad, like trying to trademark the phrase
| 'vacuum cleaner'.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Or even if it isn't, it'll become a generic trademark like
| Aspirin.
| qbrass wrote:
| Turns out 'vacuum Cleaner' isn't overly broad enough.
|
| https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:29...
| skunkworker wrote:
| The session link expired.
| amrrs wrote:
| Go to https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ and Click New Search and
| Search for GPT
|
| Or check this link
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_...
|
| Not sure how long this will be valid.
| zerocrates wrote:
| I don't think you can really ever hotlink into TESS.
|
| A better link that (I think) will actually work would be:
|
| http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_N...
| oldstrangers wrote:
| I imagine it's because they want to get https://chatgpt.com/
| without paying whatever huge sum is probably being asked for.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Trademarks exist to distinguish the provenance of a good/service.
|
| The reality is that "GPT" is 100% associated with OpenAI in the
| minds of most people at this point. The fact that this specifies
| an architecture seems incidental as anyone can use this
| architecture and just market it with a different term.
|
| Getting upset by this seems like pearl-clutching.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No it is exactly the kind of landgrab that shouldn't happen.
| GPT is a universal term and OpenAI didn't even come up with it.
| By rights it should be either not held by anybody or by the
| people that initially made it a well known term within the
| industry. Because it would be absolutely outrageous if OpenAI
| ended up in a position to use trademark law against the party
| that came up with a term.
| Aperocky wrote:
| OpenAI is anything but open, with the same logic nvidia should
| try to apply for "GPU" trademark.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| nVidia already went further than a GPU trademark and tried to
| claim the "gaming" label as a geforce only thing.
| Aperocky wrote:
| At least it's not named "OpenVidia"
| gabereiser wrote:
| Would ya'll stop giving them ideas?! You know their lawyers
| read HN!!
| paxys wrote:
| Don't give them ideas
| davidkuennen wrote:
| They make their AI accessible to anyone. Sounds pretty open to
| me. Maybe not for developers, since they associate ,,open" with
| open source, but surely for everyone else.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Any company that sells a product is open then
| alexandre_m wrote:
| This is correct.
|
| It might not be the openness that OSS developers expect, but
| they're providing a platform for anyone to build on top of,
| whether it be hobbyist projects or commercial products.
| olyjohn wrote:
| * * *
| rurp wrote:
| Yes, of course, "anyone" can build a project on this
| platform. Unless of course they are anonymous, or broke, or
| want to touch on various medical topics, or demagraphic
| topics, or mention genitals, or if they violate any of the
| other dozens of vague current and future restrictions that
| OpenAI has in place.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Isn't that the same as any other company offering services
| for money? The fact that they give freebies doesn't make them
| "open". It would be far too vague, nevermind that "open"
| already has a specific well-established meaning in the
| context.
| turingfeel wrote:
| Do you consider Apple an "open" company because they allow
| you to purchase an iPhone from them rather than keeping it
| for themselves?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| No, but if their competitors didn't let you buy a phone
| then I might.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Then any software with a free tier is open. Because ChatGPT
| can't even be used worldwide.
|
| Defining it as such, makes it meaningless. Open, in software,
| means much greater access.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Most executives and schoolchildren didn't know what the
| hell they were a year ago. Now my middle schoolers are
| playing with them. That's greater access by any reasonable
| measure.
| rurp wrote:
| You could have said the same thing about Netflix a decade
| ago, but naming themselves OpenStreaming would have been
| just as ridiculous. Having a popular product has nothing
| to do with being an open company.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Sony invented the term GPU. The G stood for geometry then, but
| "graphics" is just a backsolve.
|
| NVDA is might have a claim on "graphics processing unit" but
| that's a way less valuable mark than "GPU"
|
| https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/chasing-pixe...
| gkoberger wrote:
| They also just released "guidelines" for how to refer to building
| on their platform:
|
| https://openai.com/brand
| NameError wrote:
| I'm curious about this, in the plugins section:
|
| Do:
|
| BarkBytes plugin for ChatGPT
|
| BarkBytes ChatGPT plugin
|
| Don't:
|
| BarkBytes plugin for OpenAI
|
| BarkBytes plugin compatible with ChatGPT
|
| BarkBytes plugin works with ChatGPT
|
| BarkBytes plugin integrated with ChatGPT
|
| A plugin is basically just an API that the provider allows
| ChatGPT to access, and a specification of that API. There's no
| reason you couldn't allow other non-OpenAI models to use your
| plugin too. Is OpenAI saying plugin providers -must- refer to
| their plugin as ChatGPT-exclusive, even if it's not?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| They're talking about "BarkBytes plugin" (for ChatGPT), not
| "BarkBytes" the service nor BarkBytes plugins for any other
| service.
|
| When you have a "plugin", you've developed software that
| plugs into something. They're telling you how they'd like to
| be referred to when you build a plugin for ChatGPT.
|
| They don't care how you phrase "BarkBytes Safari plugin",
| "BarkBytes plugin for Garmin", or whatever.
| ronsor wrote:
| > BarkBytes plugin compatible with ChatGPT
|
| > BarkBytes plugin works with ChatGPT
|
| > BarkBytes plugin integrated with ChatGPT
|
| Aren't these three just literal statements of fact, in the
| same way one might say "XYZ app works with iOS"?
| [deleted]
| preommr wrote:
| Yea that's weird. I can underestand rules to avoid things
| like "OpenAI Barkbytes Plugin", but Barkbytes plugin
| compatible inegrated with ChatGPT seems fine.
| verdverm wrote:
| They are certainly working on wrecking it. I already have
| negativity associated with it from "Open" but being anything
| but open at this point.
| mikeryan wrote:
| I'm actually interested to see if this is accepted.
|
| Common words are fine for Trademarks but in this case "GPT" could
| be considered a "generic" form however in a very niche field.
|
| My understanding is that "Apple" as the trademark for a computer
| company is fine. "Apple" for a brand of apple juice would not be.
| ronsor wrote:
| I hope it's not, since I already bought MyGPT.ai
| nullc wrote:
| It may be wise to file an opposition unless you're looking
| forward to losing your domain without compensation.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Of course they did. They have a strong desire to milk this thing
| for every dime they possibly can.
| sva_ wrote:
| It's all for the democratization of AI, folks.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I think it may be the American definition of democracy which
| has something to do with guns and a screeching bald eagle.
| notahacker wrote:
| They'll never be able to "ensure artificial general
| intelligence that benefits the whole of humanity" without the
| ability to force GPT-J to change its name...
| detrites wrote:
| Nope'n'AI strikes again.
| icyfox wrote:
| They're going to have to clear a pretty big hurdle in
| establishing a trademark once it's been out in commerce for so
| long.
|
| But let's assume that they do. I actually think this will prove
| to be a good move for the ML ecosystem over the long term. There
| are so many products branding themselves as "[Vertical]GPT" that
| many non-technical users are under the illusion that the solution
| is endorsed by the same people that make ChatGPT. People in the
| tech circle knows that OpenAI isn't pushing out "DogBarkGPT" but
| with the shared suffix that's not immediately obvious. Their
| suggested "powered by GPT" is a much more honest phrasing.
|
| While being too aggressive about brand guidelines and usage
| patterns can unintentionally harm innovation and competitors, I
| don't think encouraging others to stay away from capturing the
| phrase credibility is a bad idea.
| Uehreka wrote:
| IANAL, but I don't know that that would actually be a hurdle.
| As I understand it, you can apply for a trademark on a name
| long after you start using it, if you can prove that the word
| has become associated with your product in its industry.
|
| It's just riskier to wait, since in the meantime a competitor
| could try to blur the mark by naming their product similarly to
| yours, and you'd have no way to stop them if they succeeded in
| getting a lot of mindshare.
| reaperman wrote:
| Maybe using a term of art for a brand name was a terrible idea
| to begin with. "Bard" makes sense. "GPT" is a bad name.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I get a feeling that this wasn't planned, that this "just
| happened" after the release of ChatGPT and by that time it
| was obvious that "GPT" was the brand people were talking
| about and you can't simply turn the tide.
|
| The trademark application was from december 2022, after the
| release of chatGPT. If they _wanted_ to use GPT as a brand
| name, they 'd have filed the trademark before that, perhaps
| back in 2020 when the GPT-3 trademark application was
| submitted without trying to also trademark "GPT" as such.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I get a feeling that this wasn't planned, that this "just
| happened" after the release of ChatGPT and by that time it
| was obvious that "GPT" was the brand people were talking
| about and you can't simply turn the tide.
|
| That's their problem though. Trying to trademark a well
| known term of art that you didn't even come up with is a
| very bad trick.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I don't think that this is a "well known term of art" -
| IMHO in all the articles of last year and earlier (so
| before the trademark application and chatGPT
| proliferation) when I've seen "GPT" used it was always in
| reference to one of the specific OpenAI models, not to
| something else.
| pluc wrote:
| Must be one of them open trademarks
| spullara wrote:
| I registered gpt.vc over 2 years ago. They are late to the party.
| nullc wrote:
| You may want to file an opposition unless you look forward to
| losing your domain name without compensation.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Can I still use their trademark if I train my AI algorithm on it
| first then use it to generate the trademark?
| doodlesdev wrote:
| https://archive.is/3CXdx
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230424200928/https://tmsearch....
| amrrs wrote:
| Sorry that links seems to have expired, please check this -
| https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_...
|
| I'm not sure how to share with persistent session
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| OpenAI would be better off moving away from using "GPT" in their
| product names rather than trying to take the name back.
|
| While I am sure their core reasoning is confusion (it seems every
| AI product now, whether on the API or using another model throws
| "GPT" in the name), and I think they could make a good case, the
| phrase is to general and too widespread now.
|
| Come up with something else, do a name change, trademark, and
| move on.
| swyx wrote:
| nope, GPT is in the public consciousness now, and no matter how
| awkward, that is a precious enough market position to have that
| it is not worth changing imo
| TillE wrote:
| Yeah, ChatGPT is basically the Xerox of LLM products at this
| point. Its name recognition is huge.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yeah, although there are actually other good copiers.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Then they will have to live with sharing the term with
| others.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| These guys are joking, honestly? No one else can own IP, but they
| can own the name of something they didn't invent ?
| wdabney wrote:
| Every time we call something GPT we invariably would reference
| OpenAI's work. This tells me they don't want us to do that, and
| would instead like to control what can be called GPT and what
| cannot.
|
| Great, they've showed their intentions and we should respond
| accordingly. Don't call it GPT, call it parroting (or literally
| whatever you want). I like this for its connection with the
| Stochastic Parrots work and because it is already a common usage
| of the word outside of ML/AI. AutoParrot, BabyParrot, ParrotAPI,
| etc. We train by first parroting a large natural language corpus
| and then fine tune the parrot model with RLHF.
|
| Companies will do what companies do, but communities work better
| when they are free (as in thought).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-24 23:01 UTC)