3 ms·
There is an intersting wrinkle here, I haven't seen it mentioned so far. In the UK a patent is invalid if you put an inventor on it who didn't make a significa
by sgt101 3y ago
There is an intersting wrinkle here, I haven't seen it mentioned so far.
In the UK a patent is invalid if you put an inventor on it who didn't make a significant and definable contribution to the invention.
If a patent is AI generated, and then labelled with a human inventor it may be argued that it is invalidated by the humans lack of inventive input.
- jonplackett 3y agoIf the human knows this though surely than can work backwards and do some busywork that makes it look like they did it all.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoThat sounds great to me, it means companies can create with ML but can't lock up the fruits of that. So they can't ditch their R&D people if they want to use patents -- that looks, inadvertently, like a good balance?
- alexisread 3y agoThat's a great observation. I guess the problem here is one of enforcement- with so many patents coming in, how can you a) prove that a human didn't contribute meaningfully, an act of transcription obfuscates the origin here. b) Devote enough manpower to doing this for every patent? If the contribution is opt-in then it's marginally better, but I can see that the lion's share of patents would go to whoever has the biggest LLM, thus pushing the wealth gap larger. Patents are about novelty and effort (we want to reward the inventor), who's to say that these inventions would be novel, when anyone with a large LLM can find them?