Maybe GitHub should also say ai can’t be listed as author of pr
AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
211–219 of 219 posts
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 slav…
Saying England implies in a way implies that the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies were in any way less complicit for making slavery widespread in the North American colonies. They were mostly autonomous and self regulating and chose to adopt the institution of slavery. They could have just treated the black slaves the same way as white indentured servants.
Caribbean colonies were of course quite different.
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#213Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 slav…
Saying England implies in a way implies that the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies were in any way less complicit for making slavery widespread in the North American colonies. They were mostly autonomous and self regulating and chose to adopt the institution of slavery. They could have just treated the black slaves the same way as white indentured servants. Caribbean colonies were of course quite different.
The colonists of which we speak were (mostly) English people working for English VC's and they were entirely complicit with the English what with being English.
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
2 I recognize, 1 not so much. Patents are usually filed as early as possible, because you risk losing priority to someone else. And you cannot file a claim on inventions that are in the public domain. But then it takes a decade or so to develop towards approval. You work together with outside researchers who lend their credibility and get attractive publication possibilities in return. Those publications also help to…
> it cannot have any ownership rights
Actor network theory sheds a tear. And more promptly: ownership rights are enacted via tools. Whether agentful or non-agentic, listing them would in the very least be similar to disclosing funding bodies or agencies.
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are mixing legalism with reality.
All babies (and more) are accountable to physics.
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#217The 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…
Patents actually hurt innovation. Patents are the tools of lawfare and are used to limit competition, keep lawyers employed, not improve innovation.
I've seen too many companies use the patent system to prevent progress because the innovation would cut into their profits.
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#218Earlier 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.
[deleted]
Re: AI can't be listed as inventor on patent applications, Japan's top court rules
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
This book gets a lot of airtime in discussions of IP but the authors have a narrative they are trying to push and they don't let inconvenient things like facts or history get in the way. The book cherry-picks its sources, and even then contains several mischaracterizations and exaggerations of those works. There are many other economists who have shown significant beneficial aspects of patents with empirical data but…
When I read the bit on the steam engine, I remember thinking it wasn’t a great argument as it was hard to know how a patent-less world would have developed. I’m not surprised to see there’s a link which talks about how the claim was exaggerated (though not entirely wrong? I’ll have to read it). Having said that, the bits I found juicy - i.e on the various shock analyses coming from patent introductions or increasing…
I last looked into this a decade+ ago so my memory is fuzzy, and there are a lot of economists who looked at a lot of different things, but the authors I recall from the time were Kenneth Sokoloff, Petra Moser, Adam Mossoff, Zorina Khan, Bhaven Sampat, and Bronwyn Hall. Undoubtedly there are dozens more, but I just happen to remember these offhand.