Tweets on Georgia v. Public Resource



17 thoughts on “Tweets on Georgia v. Public Resource

  1. 4

    >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.

    I don’t agree. The machine did not “conceive” because of the legal definition only including human brains. So the human ran the machine and was the first human brain to conceive of the invention. So the human is the inventor by applying the legal definition of invention.

    1. 4.1

      spillover onto a third thread, and your logic remains flawed.

      in addition to the hyperlink,
      link to

      here is a counterpoint already presented:

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

      Your attempts at transitive do not carry.

      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 [but need to instead prove]. 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.

      1. 4.1.1

        anon, the problem with your argument is you are acting as if the machine conceived of the invention, but by the legal definition nothing that occurs in the information processing machine counts. It did not conceive of the invention. It did not know of the invention. What the machine did counts for nothing.


          Wrong again — the machine DID conceive — as that legal definition (in and of itself) provides.

          The difference is that such conception does not legally result in a patented invention — under other legal rules (i.e., Roche v. Stanford).

          You make the mistake of assuming a conclusion that you would need to prove.

          Conception is but a step – a distinct step. The legal definition IS met by AI, while the larger invention process is not permitted to AI.

          What this does do is create a no-patent zone. What this does NOT do is provide for your expressed views. We have already seen that you have agreed that you were not properly using the legal definition of conception.

          You do not get to change that legal definition just to fit your desired narrative.

      2. 4.1.2

        Plus, in the strongest case for my argument. The person builds the machine. Examiners the output and is the first conceive of that invention and is thus the inventor.

        Nothing you said counters this anon. You have some twisted logic you are using where you work in that the machine conceived of something. It did not legally.


          I have provided a counter to this “your strongest case” on two different threads now and you have not responded.

          So, it is plainly false for you to say that nothing I have offered counters this “strongest case” of yours.

          The person building the machine may well have invented the machine.

          No one is arguing otherwise.

          But that does NOT cover the instance in which the mere building of the machine is disassociated with the legal definition of conception of a product that the AI machine itself creates. On this point you stumble (badly) and demand that that product be something that you can drop on your toe.

          But that is not the point, nor is it the test.

          Try to get out of your own way, my friend.


          If it helps you any, Night Writer, I suggest that you pick up the UK equivalent case for Dabus.

          The comparative notion of conceive used in that case is “devisor.”

          The court there did hold that Dabus was the devisor.

          The court — notwithstanding that AI was taken to BE the devisor — STILL said ‘no patent for you.’

  2. 3

    It does seem that all of the S. Ct. Justices (with one or maybe two exceptions) really do believe that intellectual property is a monopoly, with all of the negative implications that entails.

    That doesn’t speak well of Harvard and Yale law schools. Do they still teach property law there? Perhaps they think intellectual property law is just a passing fad.

  3. 2

    I remember when CJ Roberts was nominated. Heard a couple talking heads say he had a “brilliant legal mind.” Still waiting for any evidence of that to emerge.

  4. 1

    On that note, if you use PACER, consider installing RECAP, a browser extension for Chrome and Firefox that captures the documents you download from PACER and uploads them to a website where the general public can gain free access to the law. Court documents may be paywalled by the federal judiciary, but at least they are public record and not burdened by copyright.

    1. 1.1

      Thanks for that.

      Court documents are ridiculously expensive. It really is a human rights issue.

      The courts could provide these practically free. Ten cents a page may not seem like a lot, but if you have to look through filings that go into thousands of pages, the fee can make it prohibitively expensive to really look at a case without a well-heeled client behind you.

      1. 1.1.1

        Agree. All the federal courts should follow the lead of the veterans court. CAVC dockets are on what looks like a PACER system, and everything’s viewable for free. The Supreme Court has its own free system too, as of very recently.

        20 years or so ago, it may have been fair to regard PACER as a luxury that users should pay for–somehwat like a “rush service” for making copies of public records. The thought would have been, I would guess, that members of the public can always go to the clerk’s office during business hours and view the file for free, or write the clerk’s office and pay for copies and mailing, and those are normal things people should be satisfied with. In 2020 though, per-page fees for downloading PDFs are a racket.


          I could not agree more dcl. I think it is a bit of racket too that they don’t keep everything online and you have to pay ridiculous fees to get paper copies.

          Do people get how many pages this can be? It can easily go into the thousands and fees to get paper copies can be over a thousand dollars for some filings.


              I believe transcripts are not capped at 30 pages. Trial transcripts can get very expensive, very quickly.

      2. 1.1.2

        Agree. In this day and age, all court docs of all courts should be free; or virtually so (say, 1/100th of a cent / page).

        And we all should receive refunds for the fees we’ve already paid over, say, the last 3 – 4 years or so.

        Anyone: Isn’t / wasn’t there a lawsuit over this?

Comments are closed.