11–20 of 74 posts
This seems like a trivial administrative hurtle. My AI didn't invent that, I did....
This seems like a trivial administrative hurtle. My AI didn't invent that, I did....
"The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code), which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"
If a corporation can own patents and have legal personhood, then you might get to the point where an AI is the corporation, and thereby could own patents. I am thinking of the DAO (Distributed Autonomous Corporation). I am also thinking of the Cat series of novels by Joan D. Vinge, which contain an AI run corporation [3].
Another consideration is that we are seeing AIs invent things now in the fields of medicine, material science, music and perhaps others. If AIs own these inventions then whoever owns the AI owns the inventions.
Given the DAO, if an AI can own assets then I don't see any way an AI cannot own a patent.
Yet another angle though is liability. If an asset owned by the AI is found to be the cause of someone getting injured, then who is at fault? Who has to pay damages?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_...
My guess is the Patent Office doesn't want to be swamped by some machine learning equivalent of adding 'on a computer' to every verb in the dictionary.
More like they don't want to be flooded by fully automated patent filings without a fully automated patent reviewer.
This seems like a trivial administrative hurtle. My AI didn't invent that, I did....
The robot in question presents anomalous behavior such as creativity and curiosity. US Robotics offers a free replacement for this defective unit but the owner refuses much to the chagrin of US Robotics; the owner and family want this defective, creative, curious robot.
Along the way of making and selling high-quality clocks, the robot incurs some minor damage which requires repair at US Robotics.
The owner, his robot, and his lawyer get face time with the US Robotics CEO and corporate lawyer. "We've installed warning sensors around key points of this robot's positronic brain. Whilst repairing his damaged finger, if we detect any incursion into his positronic brain, we shall sue you and this company for the loss of all of his potential revenue that he could have made from now until the end of time."
A few hard swallows later and the robot walks out with a restored finger and an undamaged, anomalous positronic brain.
This collides with other rulings, or seems too. For example, from Wikipedia[1]: "The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code), which states: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indi…
Patents can be assigned to corporations, but corporations cannot be named inventors.
This seems like a trivial administrative hurtle. My AI didn't invent that, I did....
This AI did invent anything in a vacuum. There is some analogy to a fitness function that drove it to a result. It is not self aware.
I sense the rabbit hole of "how do we know?".