4 thoughts on “Read Legal Service Web Page Terms of Use

  1. 3

    From the table of contents:

    “THE ETHICAL ISSUES CREATED BY AUGMENTED DRATING SERVICES”

    What are drating services? I’m unfamiliar with that term.

  2. 2

    Agree regarding the export issue, and unfortunately that got cut out on the editing floor (it was in there….).

    About the difference… I don’t know… there is a big difference between autocorrect and a machine that writes a document without any involvement. Where is the line between a tiny bit of involvement (an independent claim) and it results in 20 pages of spec and 15 new claims, and autocorrect?

    1. 2.1

      For the legal arena, the difference (and the difference between “degree” and “kind”) may fall to the great legal catch-all answer: “it depends.”

      This may well be a very tricky area in that for even the tiptoe across the line of involvement in writing a single independent claim may well constitute a practice of law for which the attorney may not ignore his duties (or hide behind “AI”).

      On the other hand, replicating an idea into 20 pages, including new claims and drawings would at first blush push well beyond that line.

      I would be interested to see if the end product is vastly different given subtle shades of inputs.

      Turning to more common use of “AI,” — for example, autocorrect geared towards “standard English,” may well be easily placed as a type of “degree.” In those situations wherein the form of standard English is the intent, and the AI merely employs rules that are intended, then the work may be correlated to the patent world of a person who does your bidding being not an inventor. On the other hand, “standard English” may NOT be what is intended, and the attorney using AI (carelessly) may be then be considered to be making a mistake, but one that is still “his” mistake, no matter the AI used. Mistakes are not always “correctable,” and even without AI, the material submitted may well be “stuck” in the “as-submitted” state.

      I suppose one way of looking at “the line” may be to determine along the line of inventorship. If “the helper” is only doing the bidding of the “master,” then no additional inventing has been added. If on the other hand, the “helper” adds or materially (and that word being the key) changes the content, then inventorship may well have changed.

      If the latter does occur, then it may well be a fair question as to who that real person is that “should” be added. Since “true” AI has not yet reached the point of Singularity**, the real person inventor may be the originator of the particular aspect of the “AI” that generated the “adder.” Of course, that “real person,” may be a team, or may even be untraceable.

      **my daughter and I have mused that the Singularity has indeed occurred, and that the sentient machine is smart enough to NOT reveal itself to humanity.

  3. 1

    Interesting read.

    But on page 468 of the article publication, I have to wonder about the statement:
    The drafting services this article addresses are different in degree –
    and radically so.

    If radical, is this not a difference in KIND, rather than a difference in degree?

    I would also point out that your discussion on transmissions to third party vendors does NOT include the patent-specific limitation induced by export controls.

    Not knowing whether or not a foreign entity is involved (be it part of a “cloud” structure or otherwise) does NOT remove the impact of the US Government export restrictions vis a vis patent preparation materials. One must still properly obtain export permission for patent preparation content PRIOR TO export.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture