| >Also this comment where backend code could be reproduced wholesale from the APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259485 Do you mean deduced instead of reproduced? >Agreed, but as we're finding out, everyday code is now cheap enough that there will be questions about how much of it is worth protecting... and, given the unclear stance on AI-generated code, maybe even if it is protectable at all. AI generated code is likely not protectable at all under copyright, but that was expected by anyone who follows this area of the law seriously. > Yes, the bar for patents is way too high for every day code, but you can always get one by making the claims narrow enough. Not really, and if you did it would likely not be enforceable because the getting past a §101 motion isn't likely. >Note, I'm not necessarily happy about all this, this is just how I think it could play out absent larger changes to IP laws. I'm not sure any of it is a bad thing. Why should AI generated code be protectable under copyright? It can still be protected by trade secret, which seems fairly sufficient for what it ultimately is. |
> AI generated code is likely not protectable at all under copyright, but that was expected by anyone who follows this area of the law seriously.
I haven't followed too closely, but the ruling on AI art seems to leave the door open for "significant human creative input" like "editing, arrangement." This leaves room for photography, but can also be covered by "architecture, followed by iterative prompting and potentially manual editing to refine the code", which is still needed for any non-trivial AI-generated code.
I think the situation is not great because the law is too fuzzy and outdated, and could allow for "AI laundering" of copyrighted works, as the relicensing thread suggests, which is especially not great for open source where trade secrets are not an option.
> Not really, and if you did it would likely not be enforceable because the getting past a §101 motion isn't likely.
Not a lawyer, but I've seen tons of such issued patents out there, and many have even been upheld in lawsuits. §101 is often trivially bypassed adding "computer readable media" or some "non-abstract side-effect" language to claims. Like, one pattern of claims is "A method of - algorithm - algorithm - algorithm - show something to the user / write to a DB / transmit a message / etc."