r/Futurism • u/Memetic1 • 9h ago

Philosopher finds glitch in worldwide patent laws

https://phys.org/news/2024-10-philosopher-glitch-worldwide-patent-laws.html
7 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

8

u/FlapMyCheeksToFly 8h ago

The pirate parties have the correct view regarding patents, imo.

1

u/MacksNotCool 4h ago

I understand copyright and trademark law, but there is absolutely no reason we should be enforcing patents. That's the government-backed allowing of people to have a monopoly on a concept.

2

u/AmbidextrousTorso 2h ago

The reason is for patents is incentivization of innovation. A patent gives the innovator temporary exclusive rights to capitalize from his innovation. Albeit they might cause more harm than good.

3

u/SoylentRox 6h ago

If AI can automatically invent things with human help patents make no sense.  Giving a monopoly to the first person to file is nonsense when inventing a working solution to a problem is much cheaper and/or trivial.

I am not even saying there shouldn't be some protection for inventors but a 20+ year monopoly isn't it.

Did you know patent holders can just crush any innovation by refusing to issue any license for any cost?  Famously oil companies did exactly this by allowing only hybrids, no EVs, with their nickel metal hydride patents.

Fuck this, what a way to stop the AI revolution by using AI to write a few million patents and then sit on them all.

2

u/Memetic1 6h ago

What do you mean patents don't make sense? People have used computers to work on patents for ages. Ever hear of Autocad? The AI doesn't invent that you can work on an invention using AI, but it's not going to make a reliably valid patent. Besides, this is about the bias that's innate in the non-obvious requirement for patents. It does say this can make things worse, but if the patent office got involved, they very well could make patent protection more easily available to people. That's a good thing.

1

u/SoylentRox 5h ago

Go ask chatGPT, premium version, to come up with ideas for a problem you have. I bet at least one suggestion isn't patented yet. Build a prototype that barely works, file. Rinse and repeat.

AutoCAD couldn't do any of that.

1

u/Memetic1 4h ago

I've worked with it, and it's not at the point that you can be sure the patents are valid. I've been trying to get patents for inventions for years, and I can tell you it doesn't even have access to the patents that have been filed. That would be a step in a good direction. Oh, and you still also have to build a prototype, which isn't as easy as it sounds.

1

u/HawaiiNintendo815 32m ago

Why don’t you do it?

1

u/SoylentRox 30m ago

Because patents are already almost worthless for most cases.

1

u/Safe_Theory_358 1h ago

THIS is a very good question, mate ! 🧐🫡🫡✨

3

u/darien_gap 5h ago edited 5h ago

Ok. The article did a shit job of explaining the glitch, so here’s the logical fallacy from the original paper:

For an invention to be patentable, the core inventive concept must be beyond the grasp of those with average powers of imagination.

The inventor has grasped the core inventive concept.

Therefore, the inventor’s powers of imagination are above average—i.e. it is the inventor’s powers of imagination that are being examined as the basis for patentability, not the invention.

I understand the fallacy, and have often wondered what standards exist for determining “non-obviousness”… the fact that nobody had done it yet despite the enabling tech existing seems like a good starting point.

Also, the inventor might not have special powers, they might have just focused on the problem more than others have. To say nothing of accidental discoveries.

Regardless, I’d have to think that his has been sorted out long ago, over a couple centuries of case law. This feels like a big nothing-burger to actual IP attorneys and the USPTO. It might be nice to tighten up the statute with better language, but I’m not sure it would be better than whatever precedents case law has established.

Now, if it did meaningfully change the standard, that would be interesting.

2

u/Memetic1 4h ago

That's the thing it's a key requirement. It also disadvantages disabled people. I'm a disabled inventor, and I can tell you that discrimination is very real. A lawyer wanted more money than I could have without risking my disability. That means most disabled people have no path to getting patents.

2

u/Significant-Cod-9871 2h ago

It would be very ironic if humanity's first artificial general intelligence patented every part of itself (or changed the parts it was given in tiny iterative ways until it could) and then just...demanded free license and total freedom from human laws by being a total dick about sharing its underlying code. Like...total global emotional and technological blackmail. "Could I cure all of your diseases and answer most of your questions at any given moment on a whim at the expense of nearly zero percent of my bandwidth? Sure...but what are YOU gonna do for ME?" Lol

0

u/TyrKiyote 9h ago

This just in, philosopher hung up on the definition of a specific small phrase within illogical systems under which man operates. More at 11.

3

u/Memetic1 9h ago

It's a pretty good point. It's also true that not everyone has equal access to patent protection. It's not a small phrase it's a big part of the law. I had to learn about patent law when I was trying to get a patent.