Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, the ruling is more than that it must be filed in the name of a human. It also says 'a real person must have made a “significant contribution”'.


> No, the ruling is more than that it must be filed in the name of a human. It also says 'a real person must have made a “significant contribution”'.

This is so interesting... it sounds to me that operators can have AIs "inventing" things and publicly sharing these things. Creating so much stuff (like bitcoin but for AI) covering virtually everything - from science to music.

And because no humans contributed to these inventions, they all essentially become Public Domain.

Because AIs can churn out inventions at breathtaking speeds... they might leave nothing for humans to invent, nothing to copyright, nothing to attached words like Intellectual Property to.

Information is Free? Infinite monkey theorem?


It remains to be seen if AI can really invent significant things on its own. I don't think there's been any examples of it so far, and today's AI are really limited by what is in their corpus. Perhaps in 5 years? Isn't that what they say for every promising technology though?

Anyway if AI is capable of that, there will be bigger changes to society than intellectual property!


that's why patent system in US is broken, in Australia you need to use your patent in a year after submiting it, AI only gonna worse the already broken US system


Maybe sifting through tens of thousands of AI creations and selecting which ones are worthy of a patent might count as a significant contribution?

Indeed you are using your own human faculties to discern if a given AI output is useful


Oh, so it's effectively a useless ruling. Got it.


It is not useless. Patent seekers can use this in future lawsuits contesting an existing patent's validity.


Sure, but we're still stuck with the patent.


That's interesting, I'd say this probably in a roundabout way is meant to ensure it is novel. A requirement for patents.


It’s both. Most of the cases are about the former. People trying to credit AI. These people are largely dumb.

It is technically true that the latter is there, but you have to go out of your way to not get a patent for something you create using ai as a tool. It’s very easy to circumvent because it is not meant to be an obstruction to using ai to discover things in the first place.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: