[allears]

If you were seriously trying to patent some AI-created invention, why would you claim it was created by AI? You would simply put your own name on it. This was obviously a case of pushing the envelope to see how far he could go.

[kube-system]

This is just as hair-brained as going down to the police station and claiming that your gun just murdered someone, then being surprised when they don't put the gun in jail.

The law does not recognize the anthropomorphization of inanimate objects.

[datakan]

And yet this happens almost everyday where someone sues the gun maker instead of the person who pulled the trigger. It's blaming the spoon for making you fat scenario.

[kube-system]

There have been exactly zero cases of someone suing a gun.

A company is a different story, that is a group of people.

This story is not about companies holding patents -- companies absolutely can hold patents, because groups of people can hold patents.

[amelius]

What I want to see is patent officers using AI to label patent applications as "not novel" if the AI can invent it.

But, since the income of a patent office is determined by how many patents they approve, one can dream ...

[jjk166]

> But, since the income of a patent office is determined by how many patents they approve, one can dream ...

The patent office also gets fees from applications it rejects. Reducing the examination costs could significantly increase profitability even if fewer patents are issued.

[amelius]

> The patent office also gets fees from applications it rejects.

But it's less than approved patents, especially since there are no fees from follow-up services.