
Algorithmically generated prior art - dirkk0
http://allpriorart.com/about/
======
ikeboy
Ironically, this has already been done.

See
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-c...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-
company-claims-it-uses-algorithms-to-create-content-faster-than-creators-can-
making-all-future-creations-infringing.shtml),
[https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-
attack-...](https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-attack-the-
net-from-the-future-140928/).

Sadly it appears to have died but can still be viewed at
[https://web.archive.org/web/20150109080014/http://www.qentis...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150109080014/http://www.qentis.com/)
and [https://archive.is/w6wLc](https://archive.is/w6wLc)

~~~
qwerty245245
It looks like this was vapor-ware, no proof they actually generated what they
claimed (I'm guessing if they did, they would still be around).

------
michael_storm
Yeah, a judge is not going to find "prior art" generated by an algorithm
sufficient to invalidate a patent. As a political statement, this is fine
(though hand-wavy), but silly as a practical solution.

Edit: That said, we do need to fix the patent system. The problem, right now,
is human: there needs to be political will, effected by people, to persuade
Congress to change the laws. An algorithm does not do that.

Although it's possible this thing is a joke, in which case, well played.

~~~
MatthewWilkes
They may not find it to be valid prior art, but I think it'd be a relatively
convincing argument to something being obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art, as it proves there is no inventive skill required.

------
kaffeinecoma
If we can digitally describe something as a sequence of bytes, and we stack
those bytes end-to-end, can we not say that the bytes together form a (very
large) integer, and that the integer already appears in the set of natural
numbers?

~~~
virmundi
The problem is that the US system doesn't view software as a series of
mathematical manipulations. Rather software is considered a thing like a
tractor. The internals are therefore patentable.

The US system does prevent math from being claimed. Others have tried to
explain the inherent math nature by making products with function languages of
varying purity. These claims fell on deft ears.

~~~
na85
>These claims fell on deft ears.

On deaf ears, you mean? (Or perhaps daft?)

~~~
virmundi
deaf

------
paulgb
Neat. The landing page has some examples:
[http://allpriorart.com/](http://allpriorart.com/)

I don't think this is intended to actually create prior art that could be used
in a patent dispute, but as an art project it's well-executed.

~~~
timthelion
Looking at the examples, I notice that they are all rather long. I have often
thought about the idea of algoritmically creating prior art, but simply by
joining pairs of words. For example: Vibrating motor+keyboard, vibrating
motor+screen, vibrating motor+mouse, vibrating motor+stylus...

To prevent patents like this one:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony)

~~~
theoh
This is an older and more succinct implementation of that kind of idea:
[http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi](http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi)

------
graeham
Cool concept as art, but is basically a patent version of infinite monkeys on
typewriters hoping to write Shakespeare.

That said, with a bit of guideance such as learning/ feedback and/or being
routed around an initial framework (perhaps TRIZ or similar
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ)),
there could be a much higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen other attempts
at invention through AI or algorithm - as dmritard says, the key to useful
invention isn't generation, its filtering the noise.

Although as others have said, I doubt this would be admissable in court.
Randomly generated 'claims' remain random: one could say in an infinite,
random universe, surely every invention has already been created simply by
matter composing itself in the approprieate way.

~~~
gregmac
> I've seen other attempts at invention through AI or algorithm - as dmritard
> says, the key to useful invention isn't generation, its filtering the noise.

That's exactly my thought on it after reading a couple.

Consider the case of chemistry: One could write an application that goes
through known chemical compounds[1] and then generates a combination of all of
them, and for each combination, adds a ".. for use as a food additive", "..
for treatment of <medical condition>" ".. for general purpose cleaner" ".. for
use in a battery" etc.

Without doubt, within that crazy-huge list, there would be some absolutely
correct claims, just as one of the infinite monkeys did in fact write
Shakespeare: but which one?

This site really isn't any different.

[1] For example, harvest everything on
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemistry-
related_lis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemistry-
related_lists)

------
iolothebard
Prior art doesn't matter anymore, it's first to file.

[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/prior-art-america-
inven...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/prior-art-america-invents-
uspto-explains-first-to-file/id=19571/)

[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/11/a-simple-guide-to-
the-a...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/11/a-simple-guide-to-the-aia-
oddities-first-to-file/id=45104/)

~~~
rayiner
Prior art continues to be a basis for invalidating a patent: the prior
disclosure of an invention to the public invalidates a later patent. All first
to file does is change the rule for deciding who gets priority in the unusual
case where there are simultaneous patent applications before the PTO. Before,
there was an inquiry into who was the first to reduce the invention to
practice. Now, priority goes to the first to file. But a patent still cannot
be issued if the invention was previously disclosed to the public either by
the inventor (outside the one-year grace period), or by someone else.

~~~
infogulch
Thank you for clarifying that, I have had a wrong interpretation of it for
some time.

------
dmritard96
this is really cool. For a long time I wanted to make an internet noise
machine that would make nsa surveillance too expensive/difficult. This feels
like that same concept but for IP.

~~~
niels_olson
In theory, they could be one in the same.

------
PatentTroll
This is very likely useless. Prior art has to be an "enabling disclosure" \-
which isn't the same as the 112 enablement requirement but it does requires
that the public is "in possession" of the invention. This algorithm just makes
short phrases or maybe a sentence or two that make sense together. It is
unlikely that this is enough to put the public "in possession" of anything.
There are problems to be solved in the patent system, but this is not a
solution to any of them. See
[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html)

edit: so apparently this guy is an 'artist' so maybe this isn't meant to be
taken seriously. Perhaps its just a commentary on the absurdity of the patent
system. If that's the goal, then cool, I think he's made a point.

------
lostinpoetics
not to be a buzzkill, but it'd be beneficial to _reduce_ the data set
examiners (and defendants) have to sift through to find relevant prior art.
speaking as an ex-examiner, that's the biggest problem, separating the signal
from noise from an already poorly written data set.

------
fenollp
Digital representation of everything that was & will ever be done is already
public domain: π.

Now to look for it…
[https://github.com/fenollp/minepi/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/fenollp/minepi/blob/master/README.md)

------
imaginenore
[https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-
attack-...](https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-attack-the-
net-from-the-future-140928/)

------
stuaxo
"The numbering scheme of the prior art is as follows, the first 10 digits is
UNIX epoch time" ... what about prior art before 1970 ?

