12.24.19

Gemini version available ♊︎

EPO Throws DABUS Under the Bus… But for the Wrong Reasons

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not the applicant is the problem

DABUS meme

Summary: The hype and ‘hot air’ (or various buzzwords) surrounding algorithms which do “something clever” (not a new thing!) persist; DABUS is being rejected only because it’s non-human, which means that a human can reapply with the same so-called ‘invention’

THE European Patent Office (EPO) abandoned patent quality quite some time ago and this became rather obvious when Team Campinos/Battistelli — a nonscientific bunch with ex-military officers — took control of the Office, promoting things they haven’t a clue about. They simply lack background and qualifications. Today’s (or yesterday’s) EPO examiners are far more suitable for management jobs than existing managers, who are handpicked for connections (nepotism). As the old saying goes, it’s not about what you know but who you know…

The news about DABUS was covered here quickly (when the EPO came out with the statement). It’s related to the issue of the EPO granting software patents in Europe under the guise of “HEY HI” (AI), albeit not so directly. In Europe, “HEY HI” is routinely used as an excuse for granting illegal patents. Less than 2 months ago this was even integrated into examination guidelines (in effect since). The same semantic nonsense had been leveraged to bypass 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — another issue we covered here several times this year.

Since real journalism about patents is virtually dead the DABUS announcement was covered only by patent maximalists and their outlets. We know this for a fact because we’ve looked carefully until this morning. Who covered it and how?

“Since real journalism about patents is virtually dead the DABUS announcement was covered only by patent maximalists and their outlets.”Well, the EPO mouthpiece IAM said (Joff Wild): “Whatever was decided once the first patent applications began to be assessed in which machines were specifically identified as inventors was going to matter, so in and of itself the EPO’s ruling is noteworthy. [...] Artificial intelligence is not going away, neither is invention by machine. Answers to the many IP questions this raises will have to be found – at legal, regulatory and strategic levels. And, of course, the subject is not confined to Europe, it is worldwide. If ever there was something for the major patent issuing authorities to be working on together, perhaps in concert with a WIPO expert group, this is it.”

Sarah Morgan at World Intellectual Property Review wrote:

Late last week, the European Patent Office (EPO) refused two patent applications that list an artificial intelligence (AI) application as the sole inventor.

After hearing the arguments of the applicant, the EPO refused the European patent applications as they don’t meet the requirement that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine.

Dabus, the AI application that is named as inventor on both of the patents, is said to have designed a type of plastic food container and a flashing beacon light.

Law360, another outlet of patent maximalists, wrote this:

The European Patent Office announced Friday that it had rejected two patent applications that claimed the inventions at issue were created by artificial intelligence, ruling that under Europe’s patent laws, an inventor must be a human being.

The applications, which attracted worldwide attention when they were filed over the summer, marked the first-ever attempts to secure patent protection for inventions said to be entirely the work of artificial intelligence with no human involvement.

The EPO issued a brief statement announcing that it had refused the applications, which cover a beverage container and a flashing device to be used in search-and-rescue missions…

We loved this comment from “Do not pull my leg” — an anonymous commenter who wrote that “artificial intelligence does appear no more than a hype, which will most probably end up like a deflated balloon. There is nothing intelligent in those machines whatever the applicant of both applications may say.”

Here’s the full comment:

Independently of the discussion relating to inventorship, it does not seem that the machine was so “intelligent” as the search in both cases has revealed very relevant documents.

In the case of the can, the mere connection of cans through their external profile is known. The only difference is that in the case of the application, the surface is a fractal surface. Whether this is inventive remains to be seen. As the application has been refused by the Receiving Section, we might never know.

As far as the light beacon is concerned, the whole invention seems entirely based on studies of the applicant himself. I would say if only the theory on which the applicant bases its application is proven that one could start believing what is going on. It would interesting if the applicant provides more than a “paper” invention and would show a real device working according to the claimed invention. To me this invention is nearing a substantial lack of sufficiency. As the application has been refused by the Receiving Section, we might never know.

What is striking as well, is that in both cases the notion of fractals come up. I do not think this is innocent.

When reading the explanations given about the way the invention was allegedly created, it is difficult to follow that “the machine was not trained on any special data relevant to present invention”, but a few lines higher is said that the machine. Either one or the other, but not both at the same time. The whole. A quick look at the references allegedly explaining the working of DABUS, at least US 5659666 has never crossed the Atlantic and US 7454388 has not led to a European Patent due to problems with Art 123(2). For the EP application corresponding to US 2015/0379394 summons to OP have been issued. Art 84 (if not Art 83) seems to be a major problem, so that we might also end up with problems under Art 123(2).

On the other hand, artificial intelligence does appear no more than a hype, which will most probably end up like a deflated balloon. There is nothing intelligent in those machines whatever the applicant of both applications may say.

They are only doing what they are told and if some self-perturbation of connection weights between neurons, like alleged in DABUS should all bring the desired result, this needs a bit more explanation.

This was posted in reply to a post from Rose Hughes of AstraZeneca, who filed this under “AI hype”. So even patent maximalists realise it’s nothing but marketing nonsense?

To Hughes’ credit, she noted how (and where) they left a loophole:

It seems that the EPO can therefore neatly dismiss any need for detailed discussions on the morality of AI inventorship, so long as the AI inventor is not also claimed to be the owner of its creations. It has always been this Kat’s view that the whole exercise of the AI inventor applications is slightly irrelevant given that what primarily matters from a legal standpoint is who owns an invention, and who should therefore be awarded the patent.

[...]

If Dr Thaler’s appeal of the Receiving Office decision does indeed go ahead, IPKat will await the Statement of Grounds with interest (deadline for filing the appeal will be early 2020). Based on their submissions to the Receiving Office, it seems that the AI inventor team are lacking the legal arguments to overturn the decision. Moral and social arguments are unlikely to convince the Boards of Appeal. A request for a referral to the Enlarged Board can probably also be expected, but is similarly unlikely to be granted. None-the-less, the team have undoubtedly been successful in one goal, bringing attention to Dr Thaler and the team. Notably, we are only able to see the file history because early publication of the applications was requested. However, in this Kat’s humble view, the whole argument surrounding AI inventorship is premature until the existence of an AI truly capable of a inventive act has been proved.

Appeal or no appeal, the person received plenty of publicity and could reapply with a real person’s name. Maybe the whole thing was a premeditated publicity stunt all along.

What’s at stake here isn’t software patents, not directly anyway. When they use “HEY HI” to justify software patents it is a real issue however; sometimes not even that is necessary as massive corruption at EPO and an attack on the judges have both facilitated the granting of illegal patents such as patents on algorithms and only lawyers are happy, the litigation ‘industry’. James Prankerd Smith (GJE) has just mentioned a European Patent pertaining to “algorithm [...] implemented on a computer” — one that we named in passing before. The judges in this case aren’t autonomous, so a real legal test would have to be outside the EPO:

This decision is certainly worth reading if you deal with inventive step objections of the form “abstract algorithm implemented on a generic computer” or the like. The Board of Appeal provides a helpful review of case law, and pushes back the frequent assumption that improved algorithms cannot give a technical effect. This decision could well be worth referencing when formulating a response to this type of objection.

The application relates to SQL database management, and claims a method of updating values in a data structure in a relational database system. This is a fairly classic case of an algorithm which could conceivably be abstract, but which is implemented on a computer in any modern industrial application.

The examining division originally refused the application under Article 52 EPC on the ground that it is directed to a purely abstract method. The Board of Appeal dismissed this ground, confirming the well-established low bar for patent-eligible subject-matter, with even “database system” being enough to give a technical element to the claim.

However, the examining division also sensibly set out an assessment of inventive step for an assumed computer-implemented version of the claimed method, in the expectation that the first hurdle of Article 52 EPC could potentially be overcome.

[...]

Although this was not a point discussed in the decision, it seems likely that it may be difficult to prove during prosecution that a particular feature has been motivated by technical considerations.

However, this can be significantly helped by identifying technical intentions and motivations at the drafting stage. In particular, by associating specific features with specific expected technical advantages in the specification as originally filed, the burden can be transferred onto the examiner to show that the feature lacks technical character.

For those who are in central Europe, this coming weekend there’s a talk of interest. Benjamin Henrion has just mentioned “Discussion on Unitary Software Patents at 36C3 this Saturday” and the abstract says:

The Unitary Patent is the third attempt to impose software patents in Europe. Software patents are a threat to small- and medium-sized software companies that cannot defend themselves. The UPC (Unified Patent Court) is an international court made outside of the European Union (EU), which would have the last word over the question of software patenting. The Court would favour “patent trolls” which steal our jobs and extort money.

He recently organised a protest against this. We’ve seen no press reports however; does press coverage regarding patents still exist? Hardly. Many of the so-called ‘articles’ are composed by law firms directly or indirectly (the likes of Joff, their megaphone whom they pay to lobby).

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 16/1/2022: Latte Dock 0.11 and librest 0.9.0

    Links for the day



  2. The Corporate Cabal (and Spy Agencies-Enabled Monopolies) Engages in Raiding of the Free Software Community and Hacker Culture

    In an overt attack on the people who actually did all the work — the geeks who built excellent software to be gradually privatised through the Linux Foundation (a sort of price-fixing and openwashing cartel for shared interests of proprietary software firms) — is receiving more widespread condemnation; even the OSI has been bribed to become a part-time Microsoft outsourcer as organisations are easier to corrupt than communities



  3. EPO's Web Site Constantly Spammed by Lies About Privacy While EPO Breaks the Law and Outsources Data to the United States

    The António Campinos-led EPO works for imperialism, it not only protects the rich; sadly, António’s father isn’t alive anymore and surely he would blast his son for doing what he does to progress his career while lying to staff and European citizens



  4. Links 16/1/2022: Tsunami and Patents

    Links for the day



  5. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 15, 2022



  6. Links 16/1/2022: Year of the GNU/Linux Desktop and Catch-up With Patent Misinformation

    Links for the day



  7. Patrick Breyer, Unlike Most German Politicians, Highlights the Fact That Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent Are Incompatible With EU Law

    A longtime critic of EPO abuses (under both Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos leadership), as well as a vocal critic of software patents, steps in to point out the very obvious



  8. Links 15/1/2022: Flameshot 11.0 and Libvirt 8.0

    Links for the day



  9. Blogging and Microblogging in Geminispace With Gemini Protocol

    Writing one’s thoughts and other things in Geminispace — even without setting up a Gemini server — is totally possible; gateways and services do exist for this purpose



  10. Links 15/1/2022: Raspberry Pi in Business

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 14, 2022

    IRC logs for Friday, January 14, 2022



  12. Gemini Clients: Comparing Moonlander, Telescope, Amfora, Kristall, and Lagrange (Newer and Older)

    There are many independent implementations of clients (similar to Web browsers) that deal with Gemini protocol and today we compare them visually, using Techrights as a test case/capsule



  13. 2022 Starts With Censorship of Christmas and Other Greetings at the EPO

    The nihilists who run the EPO want a monopoly on holiday greetings; to make matters worse, they’re censoring staff representatives in their intranet whilst inconsistently applying said policies



  14. Links 14/1/2022: FFmpeg 5.0 and Wine 7.0 RC6

    Links for the day



  15. White House Asking Proprietary Software Companies That Add NSA Back Doors About Their Views on 'Open Source' Security

    The US government wants us to think that in order to tackle security issues we need to reach out to the collective 'wisdom' of the very culprits who created the security mess in the first place (even by intention, for imperialistic objectives)



  16. Links 14/1/2022: EasyOS 3.2.1 and Qt 6.3 Alpha

    Links for the day



  17. Scientific Excellence and the Debian Social Contract

    The Debian Project turns 30 next year; in spite of it being so ubiquitous (most of the important distros of GNU/Linux are based on Debian) it is suffering growing pains and some of that boils down to corporate cash and toxic, deeply divisive politics



  18. Links 14/1/2022: openSUSE Leap 15.2 EoL, VFX Designers Are Using GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  19. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 13, 2022

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 13, 2022



  20. 2022 Commences With Microsoft-Themed (and Microsoft-Connected) FUD Against GNU/Linux

    A psychopathic Microsoft, aided by operatives inside the mainstream and so-called 'tech' media, keeps spreading old and invalid stigma about "Linux" and Free software; few people still bother responding to these fact-free FUD campaigns, which boil down to ‘perception management’ PR/propaganda



  21. Between January 2021 and January 2022 the Number of Active Gemini Capsules Nearly Quadrupled Based on Publicly-Available Catalogue of Capsules

    Geminispace has grown to about 2,000 known capsules and 1,600 of them are active, permanently online, fully accessible; in January last year these numbers were about 4 times smaller



  22. Links 13/1/2022: NetworkManager 1.34 and Everett 3.0.0

    Links for the day



  23. Links 13/1/2022: Sparky 5.16, Fwupd 1.7.4, and KDE Plasma 5.24 Beta Released

    Links for the day



  24. Call a Spade a Spade (Microsoft 'Contributions' to Linux)

    Call a spade a spade; Microsoft does not love Linux and doesn’t try to help Linux, as it’s still all about Windows and proprietary software with surveillance, back doors, and worse things



  25. No Excuses for Using GitHub Anymore

    Software developers become living witnesses to more and more reasons to abandon Microsoft for good



  26. Links 13/1/2022: Slackware Linux 15.0 RC3 and More Microsoft Aggression Against Linux

    Links for the day



  27. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 12, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 12, 2022



  28. Links 12/1/2022: IPython 8.0, Iranian Attacks on Microsoft Windows

    Links for the day



  29. Non-Fungible Membership in OSI

    The OSI tells us that it got over a thousand members, but that boils down to just people clicking a URL or a button



  30. Computing Security is Being Redefined as 'Controlled by NSA' (and Microsoft)

    The ascent of fake security or the concept that outsourcing trust to Pentagon-connected monopolies is the same as "security" is a real problem because the mindset creeps into new legislation, in effect cementing monopolies and centralisation


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts