US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents
US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents
US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents::The US Patent and Trademark Office maintains that only natural humans can get patents, but people do have to disclose if they used AI for the invention.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The agency published its latest guidance following a series of “listening” tours to gather public feedback.
A person simply asking an AI system to create something and overseeing it, the report says, does not make them an inventor.
The office says that a person who simply presents the problem to an AI system or “recognizes and appreciates” its output as a good invention can’t claim credit for that patent.
“However, a significant contribution could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system,” the USPTO says.
In 2020, the USPTO ruled that only “natural humans” can apply for patents after it denied a petition from researcher Stephen Thaler.
A different federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be granted copyright, following a separate application by Thaler involving an AI-generated image.
The original article contains 360 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Patents probably just need to go for most things. At least patents shouldn't be 20 years for everything.
"You came up with an idea that would have taken a computer 30 milliseconds to produce, here's a 20 year patent."
Patents should change to protect R&D investments, not ideas. If you spend a billion dollar getting a new drug through trials, that's a R&D cost and you get a patent. If you invent a neat webpage layout or something, and a teenager could replicate what you've done in a few hours, no patent, or perhaps a 5 year patent.
Unfortunately the US moved from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-patent a few years back. Terrible idea.
And for the record, the US was one of the last western countries to switch
Prior art is still a thing though, and invalidates a patent. I think first to file just means you can't keep an idea secret and then "surprise!, we already invented that be we've been keeping it a secret, but trust us, we were first". If you publish an idea, it establishes prior art and, in theory, prevents future patents of that idea.
That's a horrible idea as it would essentially would prevent anyone but mega corporations from obtaining a patent. Right now for around 20k anyone can get a patent on their original idea but if you change it to R&D investment protection some company could just out spend you on R&D (whether or not that even makes it a better product mind you) and claim the patent. This would kill many small businesses industries especially the hobbyist accessories business.
Also you can't patent a web page layout, that would be filed under the copywrite system as intellectual property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
One click purchasing is little more than a web page layout and it was patented. The patent was reexamined and partially upheld too.
Also, I just think, morally speaking, that just because you had an idea, the opportunity of having the same idea shouldn't be denied to everyone else.
John Carmack said it well:
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
I don't think this is going to (or should) stop people applying for AI invented parents.
However.. I do think that the cost of applying for a patent should be a lot more to avoid spamming.
It's like the guy who wanted to use a computer to compose all possible combinations of notes in music with the purpose of copyrighting all music. I'm like.. didn't you also just break the copyright for all existing music?
Anyway, I don't mind people using computers or AI, but patent trolling and spamming shouldn't be financially feasible. Make the product first or fuck off.
The problem with making it a lot more costly results it much more difficult / impossible for a unfunded individual to file a patent vs corporations.
It’s already pointless to file a patent as an individual, except for brownie points for investors. You have to be able to defend it in court.
Filing and prosecuting a patent application is already very expensive. Moreover, different entities are charged different rates, ranging from solo inventory (75% discount), to small entity (50%), and large/standard entity (0%, of course). Might be a little off on those discounts, been a minute since I've had to look directly at it.
Yeah, probably better to limit the numbers, rather than increase the price.
The USPTO already has lower fees for "micro entities" as it calls regular people and small businesses. Still too expensive for regular people and too cheap for mega corps but they do have different fee tiers.
Maybe controversial opinion: People who can't afford to produce the product/service or can't pay for filing the patent should not be able to hold the patent. It's better if others have a chance of getting the same idea and actually following through on it.
Is it fair? I don't care. IMO It's better for society if the good ideas are actually carried out instead of sitting untouched in a patent office because the holder either can't or won't actually use the idea.
http://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
Short story. Every piece of music... Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson. 1983 Hugo Award winner.