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 28/1/2022: GStreamer 1.20 RC1 and DXVK-NVAPI 0.5.2

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft Staff Trying to Subvert the Freedom of Gemini (Without Disclosure of the Paymaster)

    Looking back at the past couple of years, it seems like Microsoft staff and boosters were more than eager to steer developers away from freedom and into Microsoft's cage



  3. Gemini Gone Mainstream: German Media Now in Geminispace

    With the likes of TAZ embracing Geminispace/Gemini Protocol we seem to have reached some sort of inflection point; taz.de did in fact add official presence to Geminispace



  4. Links 28/1/2022: LSFMM 2022 and 2021 UI Study Results From Elementary's Distro

    Links for the day



  5. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 27, 2022

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 27, 2022



  6. Links 28/1/2022: GNU Poke 2.0 and OPNsense 22.1 Released

    Links for the day



  7. Links 27/1/2022: Archinstall 2.3.1 and Nix 2.6.0

    Links for the day



  8. On the Internet, Trust Should Not Become Centralised

    “Trust” is a word that lost its meaning in the era of “TPM” and fancier names for 'Palladium'; we need to reject this idea that computers need to check with Microsoft if the operating system is trusted (not just Windows!), check with Gulag/Chrome if a Web site is trusted, and whether it's OK to run some application/s on one's own computer (as if Jim Zemlin et al get to decide what is trusted)



  9. Microsoft-Connected Publishers Suffer and Perish With Microsoft (While Peddling 'Fake News' for Their Beloved Sponsor)

    IDG and other fake news outlets/networks/sites (selling to companies flattering articles about themselves or renting out 'news space' to them, not just ad space) want us to think Microsoft is doing very well, but it's just that same old Ponzi scheme



  10. Links 27/1/2022: Mabox Linux 21.11 Herbolth and PipeWire 0.3.44

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 26, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 26, 2022



  12. [Meme] EPO: Pursuing an Eastern and Western District of Europe (for Patent Trolls and Software Patents)

    With the EPO so flagrantly lying and paying for misinformation maybe we should expect Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos to have delusions of grandeur… such as presiding over the Eastern and Western District of Europe, just like Mr. Gilstrap and Mr. Albright (political appointment by Donald Trump, ushering in “the swamp”)



  13. Gemini at 2,000: 86% of Capsules Use Self-Signed Certificate, Just Like the Techrights Web Site (WWW)

    As shown in the charts above (updated an hour ago), the relative share of ‘Linux’ Foundation (LE/LF; same thing, same office) in the capsules’ certificates has decreased over time; more and more (in terms of proportion) capsules choose to sign their own certificate/s; the concept of ‘fake security’ (centralisation and consolidation) should be rejected universally because it leaves nobody safe except plutocrats



  14. [Meme] UPC: Many Lies as Headlines, Almost Exclusively in Publishers Sponsored by EPO and Team UPC to Produce Fake News (Lobbying Through Misinformation)

    Lest we forget that EPO dictators, like Pinky and the Brainless Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, have long littered the EPO's official Web site as well as publishers not directly connected to the EPO (but funded by it) with disinformation about the UPC



  15. EPO as the 'Ministry of Truth' of Team UPC and Special Interests

    The 'Ministry of Truth' of the patent world is turning the EPO's Web site into a propaganda mill, a misinformation farm, and a laughing stock with stock photography



  16. Microsoft 'Delighted' by Windows 11 (Vista 11) Usage, Which is Only 1% Three Months After Official Launch and Six Months After Release Online

    Microsoft boosters such as Bogdan Popa and Mark Hachman work overtime on distraction from the failure Vista 11 has been (the share of Windows continues to fall relative to other platforms)



  17. Links 27/1/2022: Preinstalled GNU/Linux (Ubuntu) and Arch Linux-Powered Steam Deck 30 Days Away

    Links for the day



  18. Don't Fall for Microsoft's Spin That Says Everything is Not Secure and Cannot be Secured

    Microsoft keeps promoting the utterly false concept that everything is not secure and there's nothing that can be done about it (hence, might as well stay with Windows, whose insecurity is even intentional)



  19. At Long Last: 2,000 Known Gemini Capsules!

    The corporate media, looking to appease its major sponsors (such as Web/advertising giants), won't tell you that Gemini Protocol is rising very rapidly; its userbase and the tools available for users are rapidly improving while more and more groups, institutions and individuals set up their own capsule (equivalent of a Web site)



  20. Links 26/1/2022: Gamebuntu 1.0, PiGear Nano, and Much More

    Links for the day



  21. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 25, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 25, 2022



  22. Links 26/1/2022: No ARM for Nvidia, End of EasyArch, and WordPress 5.9 is Out

    Links for the day



  23. Why the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Still Just a Fantasy and the UPC's Fake News Mill Merely Discredits the Whole Patent 'Profession'

    Patents and science used to be connected; but now that the patent litigation 'sector' is hijacking patent offices (and even courts in places like Texas) it's trying to shove a Unified Patent Court (UPC) down the EU's throat under the disingenuous cover of "community" or "unity"



  24. Links 25/1/2022: Vulkan 1.3 Released, Kiwi TCMS 11.0, and antiX 19.5

    Links for the day



  25. Gemini Milestones and Growth (Almost 2,000 Known Gemini Servers Now, 39,000 Pages in Ours)

    The diaspora to Gemini Protocol or the transition to alternative 'webs' is underway; a linearly growing curve suggests that inertia/momentum is still there and we reap the benefits of early adoption of Gemini



  26. [Meme] Get Ready for Unified Patent Court (UPC) to be Taken to Court

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent system that’s crafted to empower EPO thugs isn’t legal and isn’t constitutional either; even a thousand fake news 'articles' (deliberate misinformation or disinformation) cannot change the simple facts because CJEU isn’t “trial by media”



  27. The EPO Needs High-Calibre Examiners, Not Politicians Who Pretend to Understand Patents and Science

    Examiners are meant to obstruct fake patents or reject meritless patent applications; why is it that working conditions deteriorate for those who are intellectually equipped to do the job?



  28. Free Software is Greener

    Software Freedom is the only way to properly tackle environmental perils through reuse and recycling; the mainstream media never talks about it because it wants people to "consume" more and more products



  29. Links 25/1/2022: Git 2.35 and New openSUSE Hardware

    Links for the day



  30. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 24, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, January 24, 2022


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