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

201–210 of 219 posts

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

#201

Post by klausa »

layer8 wrote: post #91
munk-a wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an invention was trivial enough to be invented by AI then why should we allow that action to be patented? The expenditure of labor to research that invention was minimal and definitionally not novel.

I wasn’t arguing for AI inventions to be patentable, I was arguing against the argument presented above, which to me doesn’t make sense as an argument. I’m very much for not allowing trivial patents, but that’s independent from whether the invention was made by AI or by a human. The nature of the inventor should be immaterial for assessing the (non-)triviality of an invention.

"AI output is patentable but it's not copyrightable" is going to be tons of fun.

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

#202

Post by Lerc »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #198
Lerc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I find your suggestion to equate a baby to AI brutally uncanny

If you say x has property y therefore z then you would have to accept that z or anything that has that property y.

Noting two things share a property is not equavalence,

A whale and an Exocet missile both have mass, that says nothing about their other properties.

Unless you think babies can be held accountable for their actions, your argument is simply invalid.

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

#204

Post by wqaatwt »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #125
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…

> Why would anyone invest in drug studies? To make a shit ton of money. These things are insanely profitable. Generics exist and they're still profitable. You can get 99% of drugs from over seas and they're still profitable. These companies make trillions of dollars over the years. Yes, they might make slightly less money, but they still would be making a shit ton of money.

And why would you manufacture anything but generics?

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

#205

Post by wqaatwt »

ClarityJones wrote: post #154
paulryanrogers wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unregulated market dynamics also gave us child labor, slave trade, 12h work days, company scrip, companies ruling over governments, etc. A powerful engine without constraints is out of control.

England imposed the institution of slavery on the American colonies by means of their regulation of economic affairs. It didn't occur spontaneously from market dynamics, but was specifically provided for by (their) laws.

I’m pretty sure the colonists imposed it themselves because it benefited them. England didn’t force them to buy and exploit slaves.

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

#206

Post by defrost »

wqaatwt wrote: post #205
ClarityJones wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England imposed the institution of slavery on the American colonies by means of their regulation of economic affairs. It didn't occur spontaneously from market dynamics, but was specifically provided for by (their) laws.

I’m pretty sure the colonists imposed it themselves because it benefited them. England didn’t force them to buy and exploit slaves.

England literally supplied the early American (and later Australian) colonies with slaves "indentured for the term of their natural lives".

The "American colonies" were, of course, not limited to the modern USofA; Sir John Hawkins of Plymouth aka "the Pioneer of the English Slave Trade". formed a slave-trading syndicate in 1554.

He sailed with three ships for the Caribbean via Sierra Leone, hijacked a Portuguese slave ship and sold the 300 slaves from it in Santo Domingo. During a second voyage in 1564, his crew captured 400 Africans and sold them at Rio de la Hacha in present-day Colombia, making a 60% profit for his financiers.

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

#207

Post by RHSeeger »

Electricniko wrote: post #186
RHSeeger wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I assume the idea is that the fault/blame lies with the human(s) that caused the AI to generate something that violates copyright. Going back to previous comments, the typewriter that generated a document didn't infringe copyright - the person using it di…

Just to be clear, when you mention the person who caused the AI to generate something, do you mean the person who trained the AI on copyrighted material so that it can reproduce it, or the person who put a prompt in to reproduce the copyrighted material?

Depends on the context, but both.

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

#208

Post by thinkingtoilet »

wqaatwt wrote: post #204
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anyone invest in drug studies? To make a shit ton of money. These things are insanely profitable. Generics exist and they're still profitable. You can get 99% of drugs from over seas and they're still profitable. These companies make trillions of dollars over the years. Yes, they might make slightly less money, but they still would be making a shit ton of money.

And why would you manufacture anything but generics?

To make a shit ton of money.

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

#209

Post by DuperPower »

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…

same as copyright, culture has become repetitive, cluttered, boring, protections should last 10 years not a lifetime

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

#210

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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…

I have 3 product ideas that I do nothing with because I'd have to sell on Amazon and if they were successful the upper case alphabet shops would eat my lunch I can't compete with their production. So the options to the world are a little bit smaller because I can't afford the patent process. Spreading that industry wide seems like it would make society poorer, not richer.

Patents make us richer, in the short term with new ideas/products that people can only afford to invest in/bring to market because of patent protections, and in the long term with public access to those things as the patents expire. We have hundreds of years of seeing this model be successful, the same with copyright.

Post reply on HN