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.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

    • You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.