When the Mother of Invention Is a Machine, Who Gets Credit? https://t.co/C302Xk2zZD pic.twitter.com/KpShTLXzft
— Singularity Hub (@singularityhub) January 20, 2017
“I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law,” #ai #MachineLearning https://t.co/Dl82Axdzj8
— Kari LaMotte (@kari_lamotte) January 20, 2017
What would a thread like this be without the best word on the topic…?
Anthropormorphication
Can computers (themselves) even BE “creative”…?
A nice article to accompany the topic:
link to aeon.co
Thanks Prof. Crouch – a relevant and current topic. See antenna design. Computer modeling is essential for antenna design. More recently, various kinds of optimization algorithms have been applied to antenna modeling programs to find optimal antenna designs.
There is also an issue of AI/automated design and obviousness. Can the existence of (or potential construction of) an automated optimization algorithm relevant to some technical problem raise the bar for what is non-obvious with respect to the technical problem? If you can show that an automated optimization algorithm in fact produces a patented design, is that patented design obvious?
Does the machine execute the Assignment document ? Must contractual obligations of the machine be made of its own volition, its own “free will” ? No, but might it be possible for a natural person to assign an invention to a machine ? In a sense, is a Corporation not, constructively, a machine, programmed by its Officers, giving commands to its employees, each individual being a sub-routine ? Make the robot the Assignee,not the inventor. Inventorship would seem to require some element of “free will”
Not even close.
Read up on “juristic person.”
Thanks
Who could have predicted…?
;-)
Wait, how can something abstract create something concrete? This is impossible. Plus, shouldn’t our response be big deal this is all so easy. Taranto held that automating any human thought process was per se obvious (non precedential.)
What joke these Google judges like Taranto are. A disgrace. There should be a call to get Trump to roll back the Fed. Cir. to before Google starting selecting the judges.
how can something abstract create something concrete?
First of all, patent claims (the words describing the scope of patent rights) aren’t “concrete”. They are abstractions.
Second of all, nobody is saying that robots and computers are abstractions.
Third of all, is there a reason that so many patent maximalists tend to be unclever rightwingers? I wonder which comes first.
Another jeer post from MM. Such twisted nonsense that it is not worth responding to.
And, yes you are saying the computers and robots are abstract.
You say that only the hardware should be patent eligible which anyone that knows anything about hardware/firmware/software knows is absurd. So, yes, paid blogger you are saying that the computer and robot are abstract.
The reason why it is painfully obvious that you are a paid propagandist is that you always obfuscate your positions. You are intellectual dishonest and unethical.
“First of all, patent claims (the words describing the scope of patent rights) aren’t “concrete”. They are abstractions.”
Another in a long line of meaningless comments today from Malcolm.
(I know, I know, same as any other day)
This one though proves too much as ALL patents – and I do mean all, as in every single one without any exception – have exactly the same attributes that Malcolm wishes to show that “patents are abstract”
D’OH
“Second of all, nobody is saying that robots and computers are abstractions.”
Have you seen the Supreme Court’s Alice case?
That is exactly what was said.
“Third of all, is there a reason that so many patent maximalists tend to be unclever rightwingers? I wonder which comes first.”
Yay – more “one bucket” mindlessness.
Malcolm on a roll today!
Only humans have rights.
[Some day perhaps sentient conscious non-humans with have rights, but only if they were actually conscious and not merely simulations having the appearance of sentient consciousness.]
Rights to property have genesis in causality, i.e. creation of value.
The artist who throws paint into the wind of a jet engine turbine owns no more or less of the copyright to the resulting painting than an engineer pressing a start button on a very creative innovation machine owns the patent rights in the result. The painting is the artist’s, as much as the invention is the engineer’s (subject of course to any assignment contract) and the innovation machine, the jet airplane, and the wind herself, will not care they missed out on any rights, as they cannot possess them, and they have not the capacity to care about anything.
Corporations would disagree with you. But I understand your point.
Well, the assignment is there for them. :)
Corporations are persons, slaffles.
Sure – a specific kind of person (jurisitic), but a person nonetheless and fully according to the veracity of the post by Anon2.
So, I wonder, if you incorporate the AI/robot as Robots Inventing Things (SM), it could file for and obtain, a patent as the inventor?
I don’t mind the concept. Just wanted to be clear about what you mean.
One cannot incorporate a robot.
What I mean is clear if you understand what a juristic person is.
May I suggest that you aim your research there?
The second sentence is always quoted “I think; therefore I am.” But for me the first sentence is more meaningful, namely “I doubt; therefore I think”.
I know very well what it is to doubt something, or somebody. Particularly today.
I doubt though, that computers will ever doubt the outcome of their computations.
Your doubts appear to miss the entire point of the discussion of the Singularity.
I doubt that you even recognize that.
Anyone that has watched the new Westworld TV series has been exposed to this question.
What if the AI entity thinks it is biological? And of course, there is no reason to assume that in 20 years or so that it will still be impossible to build a sapient being from scratch.
If it is a plant, could a biological creation be claimed both in a utility patent (Chakrabarty) and in a plant patent? That situation might violate 101 or force a rethinking of 101.
If the appearance was also designed, I suppose said plant appearance could also be claimed in a design patent.
“If it is a plant, could a biological creation be claimed both in a utility patent (Chakrabarty) and in a plant patent? ”
Asked and answered in the affirmative.
“That situation might violate 101 or force a rethinking of 101.”
No, and no.
Comments are closed.