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

101–110 of 219 posts

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

#101

Post by TrackerFF »

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?

Like many things, these differ by jurisdictions.

I believe in many countries, the standard for a wide range of IP is that if something is largely produced by AI systems, it can not be patented / copyrighted / trademarked. It seems that "a significant" contribution must have been done by humans, that's the word you'll see again and again.

But I am not sure how one could prove that something is produced mostly by AI, or mostly by human. Right now anyone could use AI models to do most of the work, and just say or make up documentation that it is (major) human work.

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

#103

Post by shimman »

svara wrote: post #95
alzamos wrote: post #53

The book “against intellectual monopoly” has shaped a lot of my thinking on this topic - economists have looked at the various occasions in which patents were introduced into an industry (or extended in scope), and there is no evidence they actually improve innovation/efficiency/outcomes (including the pharma industry!). I was quite surprised as my whole life, it was sold to me as an incentive-boosting measure which…

You spend billions to get a drug from concept to approval - and then once you've invested all that money, someone else can just sell it too, free loading on all the studies you ran? Why would anyone invest in drug studies? I need a bit more depth and detail to believe that this doesn't destroy the pharma industry. What would the empirical evidence even look like? It's not like the modern pharma industry existed befor…

[flagged]

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

#104

Post by alexpotato »

alzamos wrote: post #53

The book “against intellectual monopoly” has shaped a lot of my thinking on this topic - economists have looked at the various occasions in which patents were introduced into an industry (or extended in scope), and there is no evidence they actually improve innovation/efficiency/outcomes (including the pharma industry!). I was quite surprised as my whole life, it was sold to me as an incentive-boosting measure which…

So I was an intern at Merck MANY years ago and they had this interesting comparison.

Most companies only publish medical research findings on blockbuster drugs once both are true:

1. Production has started

2. A patent has been filed

The reason for this is that they want to maximize the amount of production time under patent b/c that maximizes revenue.

If you are the researcher, that means you have to wait until all of the production setup is ready to go.

Merck took a different stance.

There, the patent was filed as soon as the researcher was ready to publish. This meant that there was less time under patent for production but was much better for the researcher as they got their findings out earlier.

The thinking was that being able to publish earlier would attract better researchers and in turn would lead to better drugs, more revenue, more profits.

This was in the late 1990s so not sure how this plan worked out as I haven't been in pharma since that era.

Would be interesting to hear from other folks more knowledgeable.

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

#105

Post by datakan »

kube-system wrote: post #86
allears wrote: post #49

If you were seriously trying to patent some AI-created invention, why would you claim it was created by AI? You would simply put your own name on it. This was obviously a case of pushing the envelope to see how far he could go.

This is just as hair-brained as going down to the police station and claiming that your gun just murdered someone, then being surprised when they don't put the gun in jail. The law does not recognize the anthropomorphization of inanimate objects.

And yet this happens almost everyday where someone sues the gun maker instead of the person who pulled the trigger. It's blaming the spoon for making you fat scenario.

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

#106

Post by Lerc »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #21

Sanity! No AI has accountability so also should not own any benefits (not only patent but anything beneficial). Violate that and you created a blackhole of value creation.

>No AI has accountability so also should not own any benefits

That doesn't follow at all. A baby doesn't have accountability, but has benefits.

I'm all for accountability being required for important descion making. I too wouldn't let babies make similar descisions.

This non sequitur just makes it sound like you're throwing around talking points and getting them mixed up.

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

#107

Post by kube-system »

krapp wrote: post #99
kube-system wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI isn't a legal entity that can do anything, let alone hold a copyright. It is an inanimate box of numbers. The only two things that can transact with any legal system in any way are humans and groups of humans.

That should be obvious but unfortunately lots of people believe (or have a vested interest in pretending to believe) LLMs are living, thinking, sentient entities and that belief is going to influence the politics and legislation around AI to some unknown degree.

Hearing otherwise intelligent people anthropomorphize AI in legal arguments makes me realize why lawyers advise everyone just to shut their mouths and ask a lawyer.

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

#108

Post by krainboltgreene »

shimman wrote: post #103
svara wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You spend billions to get a drug from concept to approval - and then once you've invested all that money, someone else can just sell it too, free loading on all the studies you ran? Why would anyone invest in drug studies? I need a bit more depth and detail to believe that this doesn't destroy the pharma industry. What would the empirical evidence even look like? It's not like the modern pharma industry existed befor…

[flagged]

I do however like the imagery from the parent of a big collection of people working for a decade to produce one (1) drug and then burning all that infrastructure and training down and then being shocked when someone with no infrastructure or training or history in drugs comes along and somehow produces it but outsells the original.

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

#109

Post by kube-system »

datakan wrote: post #105
kube-system wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just as hair-brained as going down to the police station and claiming that your gun just murdered someone, then being surprised when they don't put the gun in jail. The law does not recognize the anthropomorphization of inanimate objects.

And yet this happens almost everyday where someone sues the gun maker instead of the person who pulled the trigger. It's blaming the spoon for making you fat scenario.

There have been exactly zero cases of someone suing a gun.

A company is a different story, that is a group of people.

This story is not about companies holding patents -- companies absolutely can hold patents, because groups of people can hold patents.

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

#110

Post by temporalparts »

shimman wrote: post #103
svara wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You spend billions to get a drug from concept to approval - and then once you've invested all that money, someone else can just sell it too, free loading on all the studies you ran? Why would anyone invest in drug studies? I need a bit more depth and detail to believe that this doesn't destroy the pharma industry. What would the empirical evidence even look like? It's not like the modern pharma industry existed befor…

[flagged]

This may surprise extreme altruists but there are people who genuinely care about profit motives and are only willing to make the world a better place at a price. I don't see software engineers in advertising and finance quitting their jobs en-masse to work for teach for america, doctors without borders, etc.

Also, the bulk of the cost of manufacturing a drug lives in the scientific & engineering exploration space, which we should incentivize.

Post reply on HN