tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post221231875124843814..comments2024-03-25T10:31:40.979+00:00Comments on Tufty the Cat: Who owns AI-generated inventions?Tufty the Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-49991740894085413192017-07-08T17:10:20.405+00:002017-07-08T17:10:20.405+00:00Starting from D1 and the problem posed, the skille...Starting from D1 and the problem posed, the skilled person would trivially make himself a cup of coffee. Upon returning to his computer, he would be presented with the solution as claimed and thereby arrive at the claimed subject-matter without inventive activity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-43752455534279174212017-07-04T08:09:24.648+00:002017-07-04T08:09:24.648+00:00I'm obliged. Yes, I see your point in logic, t...I'm obliged. Yes, I see your point in logic, that proving that computers don't do doubt is no proof that they don't "think".<br /><br />If we shift to arguing about what constitutes an "inventive step" we shift from the realm of logicians and philosophers to the world of patent lawyers. Americans might point to their 1952 law with its obviousness section. As I understand its genesis, it was to exclude any "inventive activity" component of patentable non-obviousness. I can well imagine that a number-crunching computer might spit out the chemical formula for a useful new drug, a formula not at all obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the drug formulation arts.<br /><br />But even then, my inclination would be to name as inventor the person who programmed that computer.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-8103989179739078272017-07-02T19:24:08.022+00:002017-07-02T19:24:08.022+00:00Descartes' argument is that dubito implies cog...Descartes' argument is that dubito implies cogito. But that does not mean there can be no cogito without dubito.<br /><br />I do wonder though if there can be an inventive step if the invention was made by a (known) machine...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-86640922801960792952017-06-21T13:08:53.792+00:002017-06-21T13:08:53.792+00:00If I use a calculator to work out an inventive val...If I use a calculator to work out an inventive value for the length of a component, then I am the inventor. AI is just a more complicated calculator. AI is a misnomer - it should be called Imitating Intelligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-46055828556576537722017-06-21T08:44:24.396+00:002017-06-21T08:44:24.396+00:00As with an AI creating music and elephants and ape...As with an AI creating music and elephants and apes painting pictures or photographing by pressing the release bottom of a camera, it has long been decided by the courts that these entities are not creators of artworks protected by copyright, for the very simple reason, that the originators cannot rationalize what they have created, or even (definitely in the case of the AI, less certain for the animals) realize that they have created.<br /><br />As for the example above, B is to be compared with a researcher doing research into a technical field, but only C is an inventor by realizing that the research of B can become an invention which is industrially applicable by selecting research result 3 for technical application. The AI, in this respect is merely a complicated device for selecting feasible solutions to a technical problem based on elaborate search criteria, but is, in itself a "dumb" machine which cannot provide information beyond its programming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-42813149500842724052017-06-21T07:23:56.006+00:002017-06-21T07:23:56.006+00:00No we don't. As patently points out above, sec...No we don't. As patently points out above, section 9(3) of the CDPA covers that one. Unless we have a computer making music without being instructed to, there isn't a problem with ownership of the copyright. As for infringement, if the computer generates a new piece and it has similarities to another piece, this is not necessarily infringement but could be independent creation unless the computer took the other piece as a starting point. The arguments would not be any more complex, and may even be easier to resolve, than for human created works. Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-39604749612833060742017-06-20T19:44:52.174+00:002017-06-20T19:44:52.174+00:00But we already have AI creating music, so we havev...But we already have AI creating music, so we havevthe issue of copyright ownership. More interesting for me is who is liable if AI infringes copyright of a third party human? And could a machine sue another machine? We are entering a period of.complex legal questions and issues! Ben Greenhttp://bengreenassociates.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-12216612204721314252017-06-20T17:39:01.980+00:002017-06-20T17:39:01.980+00:00But doesn't that prove that time travel will n...But doesn't that prove that time travel will never be invented?Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-74889496321541961362017-06-20T12:28:32.525+00:002017-06-20T12:28:32.525+00:00s9(3) CDPA1988 will help on the copyright front. ...<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9" rel="nofollow">s9(3) CDPA1988</a> will help on the copyright front. <br /><br />For patents, it is always going to depend on the detail of each contribution. In that example, C is clearly an inventor and A clearly isn't. B might or might not be, depending on what they put into the system.<br /><br />AI is potentially a complicating factor, but so are plenty of other things (brainstorming session, anyone?). I think we have much more to fear from the development of time travel - that would instantly kill the patent system now, for ever more, and for the entirety of the past. patentlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602962323262055007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-69405389098941105552017-06-19T13:28:29.149+00:002017-06-19T13:28:29.149+00:00If Roger Penrose is correct, we just need to make ...If Roger Penrose is correct, we just need to make the computers more squishy/qbitty. Quantum innit?<br /><br />I, for one, welcome our new bio-computer inventor overlordsDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17647766873516555245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-81672115668173933882017-06-18T20:33:45.349+00:002017-06-18T20:33:45.349+00:00We all know "cogito ergo sum" but who kn...We all know "cogito ergo sum" but who knows the full quote "dubio ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum". It is all very well asserting that computers might one day be able to cogito. But until they dubio (doubt) they aren't even starting to think, are they?<br /><br />And if they don't think, they can't "invent" can they?<br /><br />I'm not computer scientist, but I should have thought that the concept of doubt is incompatible with man-made computers.Max Dreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03338443708960801180noreply@blogger.com