2 ms·

If patents can’t be granted to an AI inventor, I don’t see how such AI “inventions” could be used as prior art.

• pfdietz 4mo ago
  Prior art doesn't have to be a patent. A frickin' Soviet movie was prior art in the Blue Origin/SpaceX lawsuit about landing rockets on barges.
  • brookst 4mo ago
    Yes, but that movie was made by a human. My point was that it’s hard to imagine citing something that could not be patented as prior art. It would be like citing a phone book as proof that a software program can’t be copyrighted (“the exact bytes appear in the 1973 Albany NY white pages, therefore it wasn’t original”)
    • pfdietz 4mo ago
      > My point was that it’s hard to imagine citing something that could not be patented as prior art. There is no need for it to be patentable (or patented). Prior art only requires that it be described and be made publicly available. It doesn't even require the originator of the information to be identified (traditional knowledge is prior art.)