South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
globallegalpost.com
South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#2My hammer made a house, I merely own it
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#3My hammer made a house, I merely own it
Yeah this seems like nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#4I wonder if there is an advantage to a company in not having a named human registered against their patent.
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#5Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#6I don't know about you, but for me this feels like the gates of hell opening for patent trolls. AI can produce thousands of patents in a single day. As always patent trolls make no money from patents, but from the bureaucratic process. So a schema like this that allows virtually unlimited patents to be created will increase even more trolls misbehavior
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#7My hammer made a house, I merely own it
On the contrary, can a person paid to develop something be considered (partially) a tool?
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#8clickbait..
Re: South Africa issues world’s first patent listing AI as inventor
#9My hammer made a house, I merely own it
OK. Someone had to to make the obvious point. At least it's concise.
Patents, as they exist, typically list an inventor, but the owner can be different. Mostly, the inventor is an employee and the owner is the employer. Where this can get hairy is FOSS. If FOSS invents something...
I think there might be other philosophical objections. If a NN "invents" something, perhaps its unpatentable because it is (by some definition) trivial or discovery of a natural law... IE, not a creative work for patent purposes.
Ultimately, patent law and the arguments underpinning it have many avenues for philosophical "attack." But, it's a legal framework, not a philosophical one.