20 thoughts on “New Jobs for Patent Attorneys and Agents

  1. 2

    Night Writer,

    It is not comments that you are out of now.

    It’s the willingness or ability to address the counter points put to you.

    Please do not retread tired arguments that I have already responded to as if no response has been provided. That’s a Malcolm move.

    Be better than that.

    1. 2.1

      It’s the willingness or ability to address the counter points put to you.

      Notably, this remains so on a new day, across four threads, and thus with ample opportunity to engage.

      The failure to so engage screams so loudly that I cannot hear your excuses, Night Writer.

  2. 1

    I am out of comments on the other one.

    anon, I have invented a machine that makes inventions. I look at what it made and when I understand the invention made by the machine I am the first human to have understood of and conceived of the invention.

    I invented it. Additionally, I can argue that it be taken up a level of abstraction. I invented the machine that invents. That invention is understanding all those inventions.

    1. 1.1

      It seems to me, anon, that the argument is very centered on what it means to have conceived of the idea. I think once I look at the invention my machine made then I had conceived of inventions that are within the category of the specific invention the machine game up with. When I then look at the output of the machine then I have invented the invention.

      So do you get it? My mental processes for inventing can include building a machine to determine things for me which may include something that is an invention.

      I am definitely right about this. This is just a slight step from what people do now in inventing.

    2. 1.2

      There is also something a little weird here because what we are doing is saying that an invention is conceived of in a human mind and that is the test.

      Given the oddness of that test that did not conceive of a machine that could be built to do some of the inventing, then I do not see a problem here.

      The machine did not conceive of the invention. So it hasn’t invented it according to the human mind test. The first invention is when the human reads and understands what the machine has done according to the human mind must conceive of the specifics of the invention for it to be an invention.

    3. 1.3

      Wrong.

      You may be the first to discover, but you cannot say that you conceived the item that the AI machine presented to you.

      Further, that first person may be — but critically may NOT be — the owner or builder of the machine.

      What happens when the owner or builder NEVER returns to the machine to discover the machine’s output, but someone else does?

      You err (legally) on your attempted change of conception.

      You are definitely wrong about this.

      The “slight step” is simply NOT a linear progression of what went on before.

      That’s rather the entire point here.

      1. 1.3.1

        Oops — missed the bold closing tag…

        1. 1.3.1.1

          This is all really silly because what is going on here is a legal definition of invent that doesn’t fit with modern machines. So we get very weird results.

          1. 1.3.1.1.1

            link to patentlyo.com

            At last you are starting to realize that YOU are not using the legal definition of invent….

            1. 1.3.1.1.1.1

              True.

            2. 1.3.1.1.1.2

              “you simply step TOO FAR and lack the current appreciation in what AI machines are doing.”

              This is wrong. I am sure that I appreciate what they are doing and how they work. I started doing AI research in the early 1980’s with backpropagation.

              If you think about it, then if you require the legal definition of “invent” to be used, then the machine didn’t invent it. And it isn’t invented until a human figures it out and once that human figures it out, then the human invented it as they are the first human brain to conceive of it and to understand it.

              You have to say why that does not fit the legal definition of invent. You are trying to say that is a “discovery”, but that doesn’t really make sense.

              1. 1.3.1.1.1.2.1

                I am not the one in error her, my friend – that would be you.

                You need to catch up.

                The transitive no longer works. We are past the point of tracking as you need to maintain the transitive.

                THIS is the point at hand. All of your responses have not grasped this point.

              2. 1.3.1.1.1.2.2

                Night, I read your Comment at #1 and immediately thought it good. As to your 1.3.1.1.1.2, I’m not sure whether the terminology “invent” or “discovers” matters. Understanding “discovers” in the sense of the discovery process in litigation, what is required of the inventor is that the person i) conceives, then ii) has “possession”, of the subject matter and then iii) discovers it (by writing the enabling disclosure and letting the public read it).

                There is a whole area of case law of the EPO concerning “selection inventions” and selection from lists of options. It strikes me as fair enough, to identify as the “true and first inventor” the one who looks at the raw data output of Dabus and recognises within it something that has the attributes of patentable subject matter.

                1. MaxDrei,

                  The difference between invent and discover is both important and NOT how you are trying to use the word in relation to the discovery process in litigation.

                  You only go further into the weeds with this viewpoint.

                2. The mere “look at” is very much problematic – as I detailed below at 1.3.2.2, and even more so with the additional wrinkles provided at: link to patentlyo.com

                  What you end up with is someone (anyone) that does not actually conceive, but merely reading the conception of another being ‘deemed’ the conceiver.

                  MaxDrei – I invite you (again) to recall the UK equivalent case and therein the Court held that the AI was the devisor (which appears to be equivalent to our conceiver).

      2. 1.3.2

        I am not wrong.

        Look, what you are doing is use the test of a human brain must conceive of the invention.

        This is no different than a machine that digs for gold. If I invent the machine and use it to dig for gold, I get the gold. If someone else uses the machine I invented and digs for gold they get the gold.

        The key point here is that according to the legal definition a machine cannot invent but only a human brain. So the first time a human brain sees the “invention” of the machine, then the human brain has invented it as that is the first time that a human brain has conceived of and understood the invention. There is no need for flash of genius. That human brain has to filter it and understand it.

        So you see the problem is this ridiculous legal definition that does not fit modern machines and then if we follow that through and keep that legal definition then when that first person looks at the “invention” of the machine, then they invented whatever the invention is. No flash of genius needed. First human brain to think of it.

        1. 1.3.2.1

          I could come up with lots of analogies here too.

          What if rather than a machine I used some type of random device that tried different combinations of say atoms and then I evaluated them, which is about what is happening now in life sciences. Now people say they invented it when they use random combinations that they then test. This isn’t substantially different than the AI machine.

          1. 1.3.2.1.1

            and then I evaluated them

            I distinguished this point already – you skipped over the two paragraphs in my post noting this.

            You are not going to be able to catch up by skipping things that I have already noted.

        2. 1.3.2.2

          LOL – you are STILL falling into your own trap of wanting something to drop on your toe.

          Your attempts at transitive do not carry.
          Legally.
          Logically.

          Game over for you.

          As to ‘first time’ – see above at 1.3 (this is now the second time that you are skipping over counter points provided to you). You may want to slow down and contemplate those points before you insist on maintaining your pre-conceived position.

          A further note on that point: mere recognition of someone else’s work is NOT viewed as invention OF that work. You have a serious logistical problem easily shown by a simple example.
          You would have invention by a person sitting in a room whom opens a box shipped to him and reads something in the box.

          Note that the antecedent of what that item in the box is, and how that was developed is left out.

          To your view, THAT is not material.
          But it IS material. Visit again the posts and the items that I have presented to you that you have skipped over.

          You have moved from an assumption that the builder or owner is the first one (merely) reading the output of the AI machine and thus necessarily being the inventor, to eliminating the requirement of conception AT THE TIME that the idea is formed to some later time of merely reading that formed idea (formed prior to the box being shipped and opened by whomever happens to be receiving the box.

          Your assertion of “The key point here is that according to the legal definition a machine cannot invent but only a human brain. is the conclusion that you are presuming. This entirely misses the underlying point that NO HUMAN has done the actual conception performed by the AI.

          What happens in our little thought experiment if we exchange the single person sitting in a room opening a box and the entire world sitting at a computer screen reading the contents of the box being presented en masse to everyone? Does your attempted logic make everyone the inventor?

          Now if you want to go down a different path of Discovery, well, we can do that. But YOU need to realize that such is indeed a different path.

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