
EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications - ellimilial
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/07/epo-ukipo-refuse-ai-invented-patent-applications/id=117648/
======
bluesign
"DABUS was developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who is named as the applicant on
the patent documents."

Problem is AI cannot be the inventor, as inventor has to be natural person.
This is no different than corporation cannot be the inventor. [1]

[1] [https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18455/can-a-
corp...](https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18455/can-a-corporation-
be-listed-as-an-inventor)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is going to be a huge problem for AI-generated art, music, and other
media, because currently these are all public domain by default, for the same
reason.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I think this would be an excellent outcome.

------
thelazydogsback
Most software patents written by _people_ should be refused -- I'd say 95% of
them are "obvious to someone skilled in the art". Given a particular
problem/use-case, a panel of software engineers would easily come with the
equivalent design. (As far as I'm concerned, I shouldn't have been granted the
patents in my name though companies I've worked for.) There is probably more
of a chance of out-of-box thinking w/AI design in many domains - the AI is
simply used as a tool by the a person. Anyway, seems like the patent system is
like many other things now, just an engine for the big players.

------
leoedin
Presumably the Artificial Inventor Project is applying for patents under the
name of the AI in part to try to provoke the system into responding?

I don't really see how an invention created by an AI that you developed is any
different from an invention that you developed. There's no-one else with any
claim to it. Inventions are achieved with the assistance of all sorts of tools
- simulations, topographical optimisation, CAD software - but this doesn't
mean they're suddenly not created by the person running the tool.

~~~
sterlind
This is a good point, and there's an analogy in drug discovery. Lead compounds
are generated using high-throughput screening of vast libraries of molecules.
The basic skeleton of the drug is picked by a heavily-automated, expensive
process, and then tweaked by humans or more HTPS before being patented.

There's tons of human labor to validate the drugs, and it's extremely
expensive - hence the patent guards the _time and money involved,_ not the
"idea."

Drug companies are also starting to use AI systems for retrosynthesis - the
sequence of reactions to take you from common precursors to the desired
compound. My understanding is that these systems have gotten _very good,_ to
the point where clicking "Run" is most of the effort.

Pharma companies use synthesis patents to further hamstring competitors by
cutting off viable routes to potential competitor drugs in the same class, or
keeping their products from being manufactured once patent expires.

If they're allowed to file _synthesis_ patents based on simply running the AI
retrosynthesis algorithm, it'll do really bad things to the industry.

------
laurencea
More technical (and sceptical) discussion:

[http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/epo-refuses-ai-
inventor...](http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/epo-refuses-ai-inventor-
applications-in.html)

[http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-first-ai-
inventor-i...](http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-first-ai-inventor-
ipkat-searches.html)

------
neals
Just don't tell them an AI invented it, right?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Yes. Same as the monkey selfie.

------
inetsee
My first thought on reading this article is that it would encourage using
Trade Secret law to protect these inventive creations rather than Patent law.
One intended effect of patent law is that the inventions would become free to
use by anyone after the patent expires. Trade secrets can go on forever, e.g.
the formula for Coca Cola.

------
throwaway_tech
Somewhat related, I formed Delaware LLC that was to be AI-managed. Delaware
would not process filings e-signed by AI and required the filings be signed by
a natural person. This was easily solved by AI contracting with an attorney to
act as the authorized signor for Delaware filings.

~~~
anigbrowl
Managed, like a fund? or...?

~~~
throwaway_tech
Managed as in performed/executed in accordance with the votes of the owners.

Take a future where there are self-driving cars. You and a few friends/family
want to invest in one that will be dedicated to ride for hire services. The AI
could manage the entire business based on the votes of the owners, from
contracting with attorneys for legal documents/representation, purchasing the
vehicle, acquiring the insurance, authorizing vehicle servicing, contracting
with a CPA to file taxes, filing the State Annual Report (or contracting to
file the State Annual Report), etc...

Why pay wages/salary to an actual full-time manager when the typical
management duties could be entirely performed by AI in many types
automated/passive businesses?

------
bitL
An unexpected resolution to the problem of software patents. ..

------
ellimilial
There's also a conversation going on here:
[https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6620646...](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6620646387489083393/)
whether this is the good reason for it.

One opinion is that if a new discovery is made via automation (e.g. cognitive
automation) it lack an inventive step.

And if generating new patents is the current state of art, things that were
patentable before should no longer be patentable.

------
collyw
Has anyone got an example of an AI invention?

~~~
Eikon
There is none as the “I” in “AI” is a fallacy.

“AI” is like blockchain, mostly useless technology that wastes huge amount of
resources where there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions except
in very marginal use cases.

~~~
hvidgaard
That is entirely a matter of definitions of intelligence. If it's as in Strong
AI, then we're nowhere near yet. But if it's as in limited scope better than
humans, then we're very good.

Let's put the definition aside for a moment. Lets say we have a black box that
doctors can put images into, and it will tell if there are areas that look
like it might be cancer. Is that AI? Is it an AI if you can teach it what
cancer look like?

~~~
meddlepal
It's not AI, it's a dynamic programming algorithm.

~~~
hvidgaard
Dynamic programming algorithm is a well defined and very specific term. This
is not dynamic programming in any form.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming)

------
lowdose
Some companies are filing AI generated patents just to function as smoke and
mirrors for the Chinese competition.

Good luck with deciphering the baffling gibberish in these patents when your
trying to implement it as a recipe.

Obviously this only works by not immediately start dumping a tenfold of your
normal number of filings.

~~~
ellimilial
Are there any examples you are aware of and are able to share?

~~~
lowdose
No If I mention a name or supply a link the whole strategy is obviously
wrecked.

I do advice every company with a significant patent portfolio to start
training a GPT-2 on text and pictures.

------
emilfihlman
Wtf? Are you saying that I can't use tools to make inventions?

------
neiman
This all becoming a bit too complicated... why not to just cancel the patent
system and that's it?

:-)

(humor people, humor)

~~~
ellimilial
Well, maybe not humour in the end.

If we can't distinguish between machine and human-generated ideas how does it
affect the patent system?

~~~
neiman
Yeah, the joke did have some insight to it. I'm a mathematician, where
theorems cannot be patented. It makes things so much easier in case we'll
start proving (some simple) theorems using computers in the near future.

~~~
ellimilial
Didn't mathematicians earn million-dollar rewards for their theorem - proving?
:-)

~~~
neiman
Though I'm a mathematician I still think my odds are bigger winning the
lottery than proving one of those million-dollar millennium problems :p

