This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The situation has increased in complexity now that not only the input but also the output of Large Language Models (or LLMs) has allowed AI machines to produce potentially patentable inventions and content that looks like literary and artistic material that, in certain cases at least, a human author could have created. Impacts on innovation?
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a case brought by a computer scientist whose “invention” was in fact created by artificial intelligence. Stephen Thaler was appealing a Federal Circuit decision that interpreted the Patent Act to require a human “inventor” for purposes of obtaining a patent.
Protecting software innovations, which include inventions, creative works, and commercial symbols, is essential through the umbrella of Intellectual Property. The Patents Act of 1970 focuses on patents, granting exclusive rights to inventors for new inventions or processes. It is given for 60 years.
Introduction Intellectual property entails the protection of legal rights for inventions and creations made by individuals or businesses using their minds. Such works of art benefit the creator, and they are protected by the law of intellectual property. These advantages can be made profitable for the owner.
Only the copyright owner has the right to make copies, distribute copies, perform, display, or make derivativeworks of the copyrighted work. A copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (for works made for hire, 95 years from when they are first published). Patents protect inventions.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) refer to the legal rights granted to individuals or businesses for their creations or inventions. There are several types of IPRs that startups should be aware of: Patents: Patents protect new inventions and grant exclusive rights to the inventor for a limited period.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content