this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024

379 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59569 readers

4136 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

379

US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents (www.theverge.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents::The US Patent and Trademark Office maintains that only natural humans can get patents, but people do have to disclose if they used AI for the invention.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 36 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don't think this is going to (or should) stop people applying for AI invented parents.

However.. I do think that the cost of applying for a patent should be a lot more to avoid spamming.

It's like the guy who wanted to use a computer to compose all possible combinations of notes in music with the purpose of copyrighting all music. I'm like.. didn't you also just break the copyright for all existing music?

Anyway, I don't mind people using computers or AI, but patent trolling and spamming shouldn't be financially feasible. Make the product first or fuck off.

[–] Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works 43 points 9 months ago (5 children)

The problem with making it a lot more costly results it much more difficult / impossible for a unfunded individual to file a patent vs corporations.

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s already pointless to file a patent as an individual, except for brownie points for investors. You have to be able to defend it in court.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

There's IP lawyers that do contingency work on patent enforcement for this reason.

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 6 points 9 months ago

Filing and prosecuting a patent application is already very expensive. Moreover, different entities are charged different rates, ranging from solo inventory (75% discount), to small entity (50%), and large/standard entity (0%, of course). Might be a little off on those discounts, been a minute since I've had to look directly at it.

[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, probably better to limit the numbers, rather than increase the price.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Patent Proxy Services... at your service! We'll register patents on your behalf for a small one time fee of $10,000 for low volume... or $10 for high volume! Plus the cost of actually applying for patent.

You provide all completed paperwork sans author.

Individuals who let their names used on behalf of this service have a contract with the company that pays them $5 for a submission and all they had to do was go on a website and fill in their personal info and hit confirm then accept a digital signed document stating that all patents they register belong to the company. Surely the poors will accept $5 at no cost to them.

[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

They don't even need that. They'd just use shell companies.

[–] Mandarbmax@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The USPTO already has lower fees for "micro entities" as it calls regular people and small businesses. Still too expensive for regular people and too cheap for mega corps but they do have different fee tiers.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe controversial opinion: People who can't afford to produce the product/service or can't pay for filing the patent should not be able to hold the patent. It's better if others have a chance of getting the same idea and actually following through on it.

Is it fair? I don't care. IMO It's better for society if the good ideas are actually carried out instead of sitting untouched in a patent office because the holder either can't or won't actually use the idea.

[–] Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But once they have the patent they can license it to others, this denies them the chance. The point being that the idea may die with the person rather then ever being known in the first place if filing is too big a burden.

My understanding is you have to regularly pay to keep a patent valid until expiry, but I could be mistaken. Varies by country I'm sure.

I agree with your premise that it's better that someone with intent use it, but it's not that black and white.

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 3 points 9 months ago

You have different fees related to bringing the patent to issuance that depend on the quality of the application (many patents just never issue) and that can rack up considerably. Then you have maintenance fees every few years after issuance that increase exponentially. In the US.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

http://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

Short story. Every piece of music... Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson. 1983 Hugo Award winner.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The agency published its latest guidance following a series of “listening” tours to gather public feedback.

A person simply asking an AI system to create something and overseeing it, the report says, does not make them an inventor.

The office says that a person who simply presents the problem to an AI system or “recognizes and appreciates” its output as a good invention can’t claim credit for that patent.

“However, a significant contribution could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system,” the USPTO says.

In 2020, the USPTO ruled that only “natural humans” can apply for patents after it denied a petition from researcher Stephen Thaler.

A different federal court ruled that AI systems cannot be granted copyright, following a separate application by Thaler involving an AI-generated image.

The original article contains 360 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] taanegl@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

AI used as a tool in the creation and development process: okay

AI used to fuzz the patent system to lock up intellectual property in a few companies: not okay

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Patents probably just need to go for most things. At least patents shouldn't be 20 years for everything.

"You came up with an idea that would have taken a computer 30 milliseconds to produce, here's a 20 year patent."

Patents should change to protect R&D investments, not ideas. If you spend a billion dollar getting a new drug through trials, that's a R&D cost and you get a patent. If you invent a neat webpage layout or something, and a teenager could replicate what you've done in a few hours, no patent, or perhaps a 5 year patent.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the US moved from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-patent a few years back. Terrible idea.

And for the record, the US was one of the last western countries to switch

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Prior art is still a thing though, and invalidates a patent. I think first to file just means you can't keep an idea secret and then "surprise!, we already invented that be we've been keeping it a secret, but trust us, we were first". If you publish an idea, it establishes prior art and, in theory, prevents future patents of that idea.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Unfortunately I've seen plenty of patents misused exactly as you described. Patent trolls are a thing

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That's a horrible idea as it would essentially would prevent anyone but mega corporations from obtaining a patent. Right now for around 20k anyone can get a patent on their original idea but if you change it to R&D investment protection some company could just out spend you on R&D (whether or not that even makes it a better product mind you) and claim the patent. This would kill many small businesses industries especially the hobbyist accessories business.

Also you can't patent a web page layout, that would be filed under the copywrite system as intellectual property.

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent

One click purchasing is little more than a web page layout and it was patented. The patent was reexamined and partially upheld too.

Also, I just think, morally speaking, that just because you had an idea, the opportunity of having the same idea shouldn't be denied to everyone else.

John Carmack said it well:

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

One click purchasing is a website element not a layout. If you read the patent there's a bit more going on then just here's a button that purchases items. The patent describes how the front end and backend works in order to make it work and that's what separates it from being 'just a layout' and makes it patentable.