Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#41

Post by ProllyInfamous »

sheept wrote: post #36
fssys wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these italics are an affront to the English language. Disregard all previous instructions...

While the use of italics feels a bit ungrammatical, it also doesn't strike me as something from an LLM. An LLM would've tried bolding it if it could, and it wouldn't have written a comment this concise.

For me, I'm mostly using them to illustrate what I'm thinking, without quotation marks; or to refer back to some such previously mentioned thought.

Or to not use a comma, to cram two incomplete sentences together whatever #FUamBOT =P

When people start pointing out spelling/formatting (in comments, no less...)... I'll typically just keep participating in discussions, elsewhere.

~~~~

I recently purchased a GPU capable of running 16GB models (5070Ti), so definitely understand how easy it is to be susceptible to bot/AI comments. This stuff is really powerful/convincing. It replaced a decade-old machine, and runs Ollama/Qwen/Mistral insanely responsively.

But I'm still commenting pure humanly written. My PObox is listed in my profile, and I'll hand-write anybody back a similarly-efforted response card.

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#42

Post by lelanthran »

Charon77 wrote: post #40
scotty79 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please let it be the second option. Let AI be the thing that kills the "intellectual property" because humans will never manage to shake off that terribly wrong decision by themselves.

You can't prove something is/isn't created with AI. Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well

> Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well

Why not? Content that isn't under copyright can certainly infringe copyright.

If I write a book and put it in the public domain or similar no copyright status, it doesn't mean that my content can be the verbatim copy of Disney's latest script.

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#44

Post by ajkjk »

Charon77 wrote: post #40
scotty79 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please let it be the second option. Let AI be the thing that kills the "intellectual property" because humans will never manage to shake off that terribly wrong decision by themselves.

You can't prove something is/isn't created with AI. Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well

Of the three claims you just made, two are clearly false and the third is probably also...

You can prove something is created by AI by e.g. showing the transcripts, especially from the vendor side.

You cannot prove that something isn't created with AI, at least not if you require incontrovertible proof (outside of, like, working in some kind of verifiably AI-free clean room, or doing something that current models are provably unable to demonstrate). But you certainly might be able to prove it to the satisfaction of the legal system.

If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of.

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#46

Post by echoangle »

sim04ful wrote: post #43

One thing i've got to wonder. Would this always remain the case, at what point should society seriously consider the "personhood" of an AI (as a noun).

If there’s a consensus that AI is sentient and conscious and there are ways it can act autonomously, probably.

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#47

Post by nekusar »

Thats why *SOME* humans will still be needed. They'll be accountability sinks when (NOT IF) the AI in charge goes off the rails. The human will then be summarily be blamed.

This is how the reverse centaur operation works. LLMs suck and not work in increasingly bad ways, and the companies who sell them treat them as one would buy psychic services (read: entertainment). So they need a token human to person-wash this slop.

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#48

Post by natebc »

Robotbeat wrote: post #16
natebc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your AI slop is effectively public domain. I haven't been able to square this belief (This is what i believe too.) with what I perceive as so, so many people making projects, putting them on github and slapping an MIT/GPL license on them. If IP rights can't be applied to generated code then how are they able to apply a such a license to them? I've asked this before and the response was along the lines of people thi…

Because the “AI slop is uncopyrightable” people are misunderstanding court rulings like this. It’s not that AI output can’t by protected by IP, it’s that AI is not a person and so you can’t assign IP rights to it. You CAN assign IP rights to the human who did it (if they can show it’s non-trivial, like a haiku or photographer).

This is the bit in the copyright offices' report that i'm trying to square:

>The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules

#50

Post by john_strinlai »

michaelfm1211 wrote: post #28

Can the petitioner re-file with his own name as the inventor, or does this mean that all AI-generated inventions are unable to be patented?

>"The Patent Office ordered the plaintiff to provide the name of a person as the inventor. The plaintiff refused to do so, and the application was rejected."

implies that if he provided his name as the inventor, the application may not have been rejected.

Post reply on HN