EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/07/epo-ukipo-refuse-ai-invented-patent-applications/id=117648/

by ellimilial • 7 years ago

37 39 7 years ago

ipwatchdog.com

laurencea• 7 years ago

More technical (and sceptical) discussion:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/epo-refuses-ai-inventor...

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-first-ai-inventor-i...

collyw• 7 years ago

Has anyone got an example of an AI invention?

Eikon• 7 years ago

There is none as the “I” in “AI” is a fallacy.

“AI” is like blockchain, mostly useless technology that wastes huge amount of resources where there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions except in very marginal use cases.

red75prime• 7 years ago

there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions

Given that automation hasn't took over all jobs, I suppose that the solution is "hire people to do it". Correct?

hvidgaard2• 7 years ago

That is entirely a matter of definitions of intelligence. If it's as in Strong AI, then we're nowhere near yet. But if it's as in limited scope better than humans, then we're very good.

Let's put the definition aside for a moment. Lets say we have a black box that doctors can put images into, and it will tell if there are areas that look like it might be cancer. Is that AI? Is it an AI if you can teach it what cancer look like?

ben_w• 7 years ago

Headline(t=0): “AI $name beats humans at $task! The singularity is upon us!”

Headline(t=a): “AI $name isn’t real AI, because it’s just a $latest_buzzword.”

Headline(t=b): “AI doesn’t exist and never will. Humans are the best!”

Headline(t=c): “AI $name beats humans at $task! The singularity is upon us!”

I don’t deny there are plenty of buzzwords around — nor do I deny that AI/ML is glorified statistics with hopeful startups who don’t realise that outsourcing the training to Mechanical Turk won’t provide enough training data — but there are a lot of things that were introduced as AI and which have proven useful, including many things that are now regarded as the better and simpler alternatives to AI/ML.

flir• 7 years ago

If anyone has their name on such a patent, I'd bet its Danny Hillis.

jdsnape• 7 years ago

It might not quite be AI in the way we normally think of it, but there's been some interesting work to develop artificially evolved RF antenna - NASA has some in space https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheunive...

Here the antenna design is generated by the computer rather than an individual.

bluesign3• 7 years ago

"DABUS was developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who is named as the applicant on the patent documents."

Problem is AI cannot be the inventor, as inventor has to be natural person. This is no different than corporation cannot be the inventor. [1]

[1] https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18455/can-a-corp...

TheOtherHobbes• 7 years ago

This is going to be a huge problem for AI-generated art, music, and other media, because currently these are all public domain by default, for the same reason.

lttlrck• 7 years ago

I think that would be a copyright issue though.

Ididntdothis• 7 years ago

I think this would be an excellent outcome.

im3w1l• 7 years ago

Public domain by default?! Shouldn't they AI count as just another tool? Someone ran the AI program. Someone took a look at its output and said "ah this looks sweet, let's apply for this one". These people are the tool users and should be classified as the inventors.

bluesign3• 7 years ago

Actually no, by default copyright is assigned to the user of the AI.

neals• 7 years ago

Just don't tell them an AI invented it, right?

thaumasiotes• 7 years ago

Yes. Same as the monkey selfie.

ellimilial4• 7 years ago

There's also a conversation going on here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6620646... whether this is the good reason for it.

One opinion is that if a new discovery is made via automation (e.g. cognitive automation) it lack an inventive step.

And if generating new patents is the current state of art, things that were patentable before should no longer be patentable.

neiman3• 7 years ago

This all becoming a bit too complicated... why not to just cancel the patent system and that's it?

:-)

(humor people, humor)

ellimilial4• 7 years ago

Well, maybe not humour in the end.

If we can't distinguish between machine and human-generated ideas how does it affect the patent system?

neiman3• 7 years ago

Yeah, the joke did have some insight to it. I'm a mathematician, where theorems cannot be patented. It makes things so much easier in case we'll start proving (some simple) theorems using computers in the near future.

lowdose2• 7 years ago

Some companies are filing AI generated patents just to function as smoke and mirrors for the Chinese competition.

Good luck with deciphering the baffling gibberish in these patents when your trying to implement it as a recipe.

Obviously this only works by not immediately start dumping a tenfold of your normal number of filings.

ellimilial4• 7 years ago

Are there any examples you are aware of and are able to share?

lowdose2• 7 years ago

No If I mention a name or supply a link the whole strategy is obviously wrecked.

I do advice every company with a significant patent portfolio to start training a GPT-2 on text and pictures.

bitL• 7 years ago

An unexpected resolution to the problem of software patents. ..

leoedin• 7 years ago

Presumably the Artificial Inventor Project is applying for patents under the name of the AI in part to try to provoke the system into responding?

I don't really see how an invention created by an AI that you developed is any different from an invention that you developed. There's no-one else with any claim to it. Inventions are achieved with the assistance of all sorts of tools - simulations, topographical optimisation, CAD software - but this doesn't mean they're suddenly not created by the person running the tool.

mirekrusin• 7 years ago

Maybe. Until one morning you discover that AI created case against you.

ps. You may have problems when it happens because the court/judge may be AI as well at that time.

sterlind• 7 years ago

This is a good point, and there's an analogy in drug discovery. Lead compounds are generated using high-throughput screening of vast libraries of molecules. The basic skeleton of the drug is picked by a heavily-automated, expensive process, and then tweaked by humans or more HTPS before being patented.

There's tons of human labor to validate the drugs, and it's extremely expensive - hence the patent guards the time and money involved, not the "idea."

Drug companies are also starting to use AI systems for retrosynthesis - the sequence of reactions to take you from common precursors to the desired compound. My understanding is that these systems have gotten very good, to the point where clicking "Run" is most of the effort.

Pharma companies use synthesis patents to further hamstring competitors by cutting off viable routes to potential competitor drugs in the same class, or keeping their products from being manufactured once patent expires.

If they're allowed to file synthesis patents based on simply running the AI retrosynthesis algorithm, it'll do really bad things to the industry.

throwaway_tech2• 7 years ago

Somewhat related, I formed Delaware LLC that was to be AI-managed. Delaware would not process filings e-signed by AI and required the filings be signed by a natural person. This was easily solved by AI contracting with an attorney to act as the authorized signor for Delaware filings.

anigbrowl• 7 years ago

Managed, like a fund? or...?

throwaway_tech2• 7 years ago

Managed as in performed/executed in accordance with the votes of the owners.

Take a future where there are self-driving cars. You and a few friends/family want to invest in one that will be dedicated to ride for hire services. The AI could manage the entire business based on the votes of the owners, from contracting with attorneys for legal documents/representation, purchasing the vehicle, acquiring the insurance, authorizing vehicle servicing, contracting with a CPA to file taxes, filing the State Annual Report (or contracting to file the State Annual Report), etc...

Why pay wages/salary to an actual full-time manager when the typical management duties could be entirely performed by AI in many types automated/passive businesses?

bluesign3• 7 years ago

Basically you hires the lawyer as the manager no? Just lawyer has AI as assistant to do the all paperwork.

deftnerd• 7 years ago

I'm particularly interested in some kind of overview of what your goals were, what you learned in the process, and what was particularly successful or unsuccessful.

I've had similar aspirations before but without a strong background in actually running a business and knowing how much work goes into the management, I've been unable to determine if the work effort to automate a large portion of it is worth the time.

thelazydogsback• 7 years ago

Most software patents written by people should be refused -- I'd say 95% of them are "obvious to someone skilled in the art". Given a particular problem/use-case, a panel of software engineers would easily come with the equivalent design. (As far as I'm concerned, I shouldn't have been granted the patents in my name though companies I've worked for.) There is probably more of a chance of out-of-box thinking w/AI design in many domains - the AI is simply used as a tool by the a person. Anyway, seems like the patent system is like many other things now, just an engine for the big players.

emilfihlman• 7 years ago

Wtf? Are you saying that I can't use tools to make inventions?

inetsee• 7 years ago

My first thought on reading this article is that it would encourage using Trade Secret law to protect these inventive creations rather than Patent law. One intended effect of patent law is that the inventions would become free to use by anyone after the patent expires. Trade secrets can go on forever, e.g. the formula for Coca Cola.

EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications

Related Stories