●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, August 22, 2021 ●● ● Aug 22 [00:27] *DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@4y5h75sqysy8k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [01:35] *acer-box (~acer-box@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:35] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [01:35] *acer-box is now known as schestowitz-TR [01:41] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Aug 22 [02:30] *DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@4y5h75sqysy8k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [04:41] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Aug 22 [09:00] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:01] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:05] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [09:05] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [10:29] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:29] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:38] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:39] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [11:06] *psydroid_ (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [12:45] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [12:45] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Aug 22 [13:12] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:12] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [15:38] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/08/artificial-intelligence-system-as.html?showComment=1629467071666#c2889492474409637171 [15:38] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Artificial Intelligence system as inventor in South African patent application: The case of DABUS - The IPKat [15:38] schestowitz " [15:38] schestowitz MaxDrei - if I may quote from the same paper that you plucked your quote from; [15:38] schestowitz Question 3: Should patent law allow AI to be identified as the sole or joint inventor? [15:38] schestowitz We see no need to identify an AI system as an inventor. Rather, we suggest patent law should allow patenting of an invention in the situation contemplated in our answer to Question 2(c), in particular in a case where human involvement in the invention falls short of being the actual deviser of the invention due to a significant contribution from an AI system. To address this situation, section 7(3) PA 1977 could be amended to specify that the [15:38] schestowitz person responsible for the output from the AI system which provides this contribution should be regarded as an inventor. Note that once a human has been identified as an inventor in this manner, other issues such as ownership can then be determined in accordance with existing law and practice. (This approach is somewhat analogous to the provision of section 9(3) of CDPA 1988 regarding the authorship of machine-generated works). [15:38] schestowitz This in fact directly follows your quote and rather contradicts your implication that CIPA is in favour of naming AI inventors. [15:38] schestowitz Your Mystic Meg analogy fails as it posits that the crystal ball hoicks out an invention without preparation or context. Real systems need training and input, before they generate results. If Mystic Meg has a technical problem, trains her ball to look through a solution space, and has the technical skill to assess the result, then she has every claim to be the inventor. The analogy with computer-generated copyright works from the CIPA paper is an [15:38] schestowitz attractive way to view these circumstances. [15:38] schestowitz An earlier CIPA paper suggested as an aside that the output of an AI system is a discovery - a fact in itself. The invention arises in what the human controller does with the discovery. [15:38] schestowitz ' [15:50] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [15:50] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Aug 22 [16:00] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:01] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:34] *blitzed has quit (Quit: +++ATH0&D2 NO CARRIER NO CAREER) [16:37] *blitzed (~blitzed@6e2h8x3kfegzq.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:47] *DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@4y5h75sqysy8k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [17:48] schestowitz SPAMMERS in Microsoft site: [17:48] schestowitz > Hi Roy, I'm from Packt publishing. [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > I intend to get your honest review on our latest Ballerina publication [17:48] schestowitz > in exchange for a complimentary eBook(PDF). Would you be interested to [17:48] schestowitz > review on Amazon? [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > Title: Cloud Native Applications with Ballerina, authored by Dhanushka [17:48] schestowitz > Madushan. [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > Profile image [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > Teny Thomas [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > Senior Marketing Coordinator at Packt Publishing [17:48] schestowitz > [17:48] schestowitz > Borivali, Maharashtra, India ● Aug 22 [18:29] *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) [18:29] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@pahbj57f5qrve.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [19:05] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:18] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:18] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:24] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:26] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [20:48] *DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@jr3cecykdsq7y.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 22 [21:58] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/08/artificial-intelligence-system-as.html?showComment=1629622437662#c5882348159963497430 [21:58] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Artificial Intelligence system as inventor in South African patent application: The case of DABUS - The IPKat [21:58] schestowitz " [21:58] schestowitz Thanks, Catnic. You infer that I derive that CIPA is "in favour of" naming an AI as inventor. It was not my intention to make any such implication and I don't see any basis for you to draw from my words any such inference. [21:58] schestowitz One of us, or both, might find it useful to re-visit the written decisions by the EPO and the UKIPO in the DABUS family. It was my recollection of something in them (together with the speculations of various posters to patent law blogs in the USA) that prompted me to write about the possibilities in the future of an AI outputting information amounting to a new and non-obvious contribution to the art, and how to categorize any such output. The US [21:58] schestowitz patent statute speaks of awardding a patent to those who "discover" any patentable matter, so I'm uneasy about designating an AI as a discoverer. I prefer to think of Mystic Meg as the "discoverer" of patentable matter in the output of the AI. Perhaps the US statute was using "discover" in the same sense as it is used in the "discovery" phase of US patent litigation, namely, to make an enabling disclosure of it available to others. TGhen we can dub [21:58] schestowitz Meg and not the AI as the first discoverer. [21:58] schestowitz I have no time today, to read through both those decisions. I hope the publisher here will find time to release this post to the thread. [21:58] schestowitz ' ● Aug 22 [23:15] *psydroid_ has quit (connection closed)