Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on lingo.lol.
lingo.lol is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for linguists, philologists, and other lovers of languages.

Administered by:

Server stats:

63
active users

lingo.lol: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.8

#patent

1 post1 participant0 posts today
Public
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

DEAR #IP #PATENT LAWYERS,
am still watching pre-code movies, particularly movies around 1928 the year Jazz Man came out and talkies became a thing.

one thing i’ve noticed are the big PATENT NOTICES at the beginning of talkies. that has made me wonder: i have not noticed patent notices at the beginning of silent movies.

so i ask: is this why there were a fuckton of independent silent film makers? did sound film #patents help concentrate power into the Hollywood studios monopsony?

Public
Alexander J. Stein

#Patent publications by European alternative #protein innovators increased by 960% since 2015, but important areas (e.g. #plantbreeding of better protein crops to provide raw ingredients for #plantbased products) remain neglected. Few #patents are published on cultivated #meat & precision #fermentation, and just 1% of patents relates to alternative #seafood, highlighting need for more research: gfieurope.org/blog/report-euro #innovation #research #cleanmeat #cultivatedmeat #precisionfermentation

GFI Europe · Report: European alternative protein patents jump by 960% in 10 years - GFI EuropeThe first analysis of its kind has revealed that patent publications by European alternative protein innovators have increased by 960% over the last decade.
Public *
Matthew Rimmer

Delighted to have contributed to Professor Jorge Contreras' epic collection, Sub-Patent Innovation Rights: Utility Models, Petty Patents and Innovation Patents Around the World

cambridge.org/core/books/subpa I wrote the chapter on 'Reinventing the Wheel: The Rise and Fall of the Australian Innovation Patent', and I was a co-author on the introduction. The Cambridge University Press collection is open access under a Creative Commons licence.

#patent #utilitymodels #pettypatents #innovationpatents #innovation #intellectualproperty #auslaw #auspol #openaccess (The cover looks like one of Wallace and Gromit's cracking contraptions).

Replied in thread
Public
RS, Author, Novelist, Prosaist

@cstross @davecb @glynmoody

[Company, business, people] won't relinquish anything [read: asset that we have that has value] they no longer need—ever.

Only forward thinkers, lawyers making companies discard legal liabilities, and declutters get rid of "assets" unless forced. It's why patents and copyrights at one time had relatively short lifespans: to give creators a chance to benefit—and then the public.

Current law changed that. It is criminal that it's now legal to horde.

I can see the reasoning behind the wrong-thinking backlash to burn the system down, which a priori makes creators' labor worthless in order to get that narcotic hit of making all extant knowledge free. End of progressive creativity in that line of thinking.

I don't think the end run by AI companies to copy and reproduce that knowledge is much better. It will simply cause creativity to be devalued over a longer time until most people choose never to create as an avocation. Our world will become progressively greyer; guilds will return in the form of corporations, where processes are guarded and lost and never shared.

The problem is copyright and patent duration extensions. Copyrights went from 14 years plus 14 years if extended by the author themself. 50 years after the death of the author violates the original concept of good for the creator and good for society.

AI companies stealing protected knowledge is a side-effect, but even if copyrights were reasonable, I trust they'd steal and illegally plagiarize from the material anyway. There is no way their business model affords paying for source data, and royalties if creator's style is duplicated devaluing their works. Some non-AI tech companies do train ethically or use ethically trained (e.g. IBM), but using their LLMs is expensive. It makes those of the All Knowledge is Free religion sick with envy. (They will pay for food but never knowledge.) It makes them deranged and mentally ready to fight the war that kills their enemy regardless of the collateral damage, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Self publishing is the sun streaming through a hole in the rain clouds onto the green knoll in the distance, but I worry that it won't last under the influence of big money and censorship via litigation. Another subject for another day, and a road I expect I'll be traveling with an umbrella. As @cstross pointed out, that little royalty in exchange for marketing, book construction, and distribution (not to mention the curation of publishers only wanting to buy stories they think they can sell) which might translate to big sales numbers still feels like a promised land.

#BoostingIsSharing

#Writer#Author#WritingCommunity
Public
Paco Hope #resist

So, as I understand it, #LLM output from the vast majority of #GenAI we have today is not copyrightable. (I'm not a lawyer. It's probably more complicated than that) So what does that mean with respect to patents?

If some major medical company uses #ChatGPT to create a cure for cancer, can they patent the cure? If a second company gets enough information to point their own LLM in the right direction and develops the same cure without any reference to the first company's solution, do they also get to sell it?

In America, healthcare companies expect to get rich curing your illnesses. They're not going to develop and market life-saving technologies if they can't make massive profits doing it.

So could the intellectual property paradox of AI mean that they WON'T use AI to find groundbreaking cures? Probably not. It's easier to lie about how they got the inspiration. They will claim that their researcher had a brilliant idea, and since the idea came from a human mind it is patentable and profitable.

It would be fascinating to try to invalidate a #patent by proving that the idea was generated by AI, and thus could not be owned by the patent holder. I have no idea how any of this law works. I'm just couch-potato speculating. Maybe it doesn't work this way at all.

Public
Matthew Rimmer

The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)
Rose Hughes
ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/10/
#biodiscovery #patent #EUlaw #IndigenousIP
'The invention arose from research by The Institute for Development Research (IRD) into traditional antimalarial remedies used by indigenous communities in French Guiana. A survey of these communities, involving interviews with 117 Indigenous people, identified 45 remedies using 27 different plant species, including bitter ash. The researchers focused on bitter ash to subsequently identify and extract the anti-malaria compound, Simalikalactone E.'

The IPKatThe morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)The IPKat blog reports on copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective.
ExploreLive feeds
About