You keep on wanting YOUR narrative, while avoiding all of the simple and direct counterpoints put to you, Night Writer.

Stop

Running

Away.

Let’s – yet again – deconstruct your attempted narrative:

Your (1) of “Was it actually invented when the machine put together a combination of elements.

For (1), we can’t say that both the machine invented but is not eligible for a patent because it is not a person as the definition of invent is defined in words that apply to human brains and not machines.”

You have confused and conflated the different legal definitions of “invent” and “conceive.”

I pointed out to you that you are attempting to take a vector from the top down ‘invent’ instead of from the bottom up ‘conceive’ because you simply do not like what the legal definition of conceive provides.

You have admitted as such on these boards that AI can legally be the conceiver. You then run away every time I try to bring you back to this point.

You confuse and conflate the FACT that my argument – legally based on conceiver first, ALSO holds that under US Sovereign law, that AI cannot be an inventor.

More than just the US case, I have provided you a path with the UK version of the case (wherein the court there held AI to be the equivalent of conceiver in their notion of devisor, and yet held ‘no patent for you.’

You ran away from that too.

You yammer about wanting me to be ‘an attorney,’ and yet YOU refuse to be one, and instead ONLY repeat a position to which counter points have been presented. This is just like your most odd “Trump will be a Savior” based only on your feelings ‘drumming up’ attempts.

Let’s turn to your other thrust:

“(2) Did the person that first saw the combination of elements invent the invention?”

And immediately, your logical and legal fallacy presents itself. Your error of vector choice (from inventor to conceiver, instead of from conceiver to inventor show the error: “By the legal definition of invent in the USA, the conclusion in (1) is that the machine did not invent the invention.”

As I have already pointed out to you, I reach the exact same spot. Thus, your conclusion does NOT arrive from your premise. Instead, you have run logic circles and merely proclaim your conclusion from nothing more than your assertion OF that conclusion.

As to “And, for (2), we can say that the first human brain conceived of the invention, so they did invent it.”

and

“For (2), the patent statute explicitly says that the manner of invention does not matter. So if I invent by using a machine to figure out a bunch of stuff and I pick what I want as an invention, then that is inventing. I am the first human brain to conceive of the invention.”

You have now conflated 103 which deals with a different aspect of invention – top down perspective and an overall view of invention – while STILL not dealing with the underlying requirement and legal definition of conceiver, from the bottom up perspective.

I have deconstructed your mere human reading the output of AI’s conceptions several times now – and like EVERY all element of this discussion, you have NOT engaged ANY of those counter points put to you (across SEVERAL THREADS).

So let’s modify the point put to you a little bit more and see if you will engage ON POINT or merely run away (again) after claiming that you have engaged on point….

In addition to post 1.3 link to patentlyo.com I had added at post 1.3.2.2 an additional ‘mere reader’ conundrum for you:

As to ‘first time’ – see above at 1.3 (this is now the second time that you are skipping over counter points provided to you). You may want to slow down and contemplate those points before you insist on maintaining your pre-conceived position.

A further note on that point: mere recognition of someone else’s work is NOT viewed as invention OF that work. You have a serious logistical problem easily shown by a simple example.

You would have ‘invention’ be by a person sitting in a room when that person merely opens a box shipped to him and reads something in the box.

Note that the antecedent of what that item in the box is, and how that was developed is left out.

To your view, THAT is not material.

But it IS material. Visit again the posts and the items that I have presented to you that you have skipped over.

You have moved from an assumption that the builder or owner is the first one (merely) reading the output of the AI machine and thus necessarily being the inventor, to eliminating the requirement of conception AT THE TIME that the idea is formed to some later time of merely reading that formed idea (formed prior to the box being shipped and opened by whomever happens to be receiving the box.

Your assertion of “The key point here is that according to the legal definition a machine cannot invent but only a human brain.” is the conclusion that you are presuming. This entirely misses the underlying point that NO HUMAN has done the actual conception performed by the AI.

What happens in our little thought experiment if we exchange the single person sitting in a room opening a box and the entire world sitting at a computer screen reading the contents of the box being presented en masse to everyone? Does your attempted logic make everyone the inventor?

Now if you want to go down a different path of Discovery, well, we can do that. But YOU need to realize that such is indeed a different path.

..

To this (unanswered) point, let’s add three additional rooms. In one of these additional rooms, there is a separate REAL person doing the conceiving, and writing that conception down, let’s say in a patent application format. That patent application is put into a black box. In the other additional room, there is an AI doing the conceiving, and with automatic transcription (of which, this capability exists today), that conception is ALSO transcribed into a patent application format. This other patent application is put into a separate black box. Each of these two black boxes are put into the third room. In that third room, there is a randomizer that takes all the black boxes given to it, and completely randomly selects a single black box for presentation to the aforementioned gentlemen – who for argument’s sake let say has nothing to do with building or owning the AI machine that was in the second room.

Now let’s return to YOUR supposition that a real person opening that black box and merely reading what is in the box MUST be deemed the inventor.

Do you see the logical problem?

Please give a direct and clear answer to this question. DO NOT try to merely restate your narrative. ANSWER THIS QUESITON!

And then let’s return to my previous counter point which you have not answered, and replace that nondescript person merely reading what is in the black box with millions of people simultaneously. Are EACH of these millions of people who are merely recognizing what has been captured on paper (randomly and may or may not be the AI captured item) “inventors?”

We can ONLY be consistent here (legally) by recognizing the flaw in your position. The flaw that comes from your attempted narrative and vector treatment from “inventor to conceiver,” rather than MY treatment of “conceiver first, and then inventor separately.”

Finally, your exasperated edict of “There is really no other consistent opinion.” shows that you WANT a certain Ends, and quite frankly have abandoned a proper legal path, or Means to those Ends.

Consistency? What exactly is the driver for your ‘consistency?’ That innovation IS met with a patent? But YOU only get there because you forsake exactly who the conceiver actually is – legally and factually.