About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« The Supreme Court Grapples with Patent Enablement | Main | Will Artificial Intelligence Force Us to be Less Dumb about How We Evaluate Humans? »

April 06, 2023

Comments

To "conceive" an invention it is not enough to generate a design for an article of commerce. One has to i) assess the design and "conceive" that it might indeed be an embodiment of a patentable inventive concept, and then ii) output in readable form what that conceived concept is.

But what if, in the near future, an AI not only outputs a product design but also a set of claims fitting to the design, and oven-ready for filing at the USPTO. Has the AI then done enough to be entitled to be recognised as having "conceived" an invention?

Mr. Max Drei,

It is beyond trivial for an AI to ALSO perform an assessment, as well as to output in readable form.

Why do you strain so much to deny the non-human aspect of an innovation without a human being the innovator?

At the minimum in the US Sovereign, our laws protect innovation by humans - under the foundation of the Lockean exchange of Quid Pro Quo.

As in the parallel case of the Naruto (colloquial recalling here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute ) the mere presence of creativity is not necessarily recognized by a legal grant of intellectual property.

I am genuinely perplexed by the level of effort to NOT understand the legal foundations that control.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30