What Is Useful, May Not Be……

 

This is true that what is useful, may not necessarily be an invention. Rather, most of the invented products are not even useful. A company would show their portfolio of Intellectual Property, in which, they’ve piled up patented products, trademarks that are meant to be Proposed to be Used only. Yet, most of that stock never end up in the Market, nor become innovation.

When IPRP == IPER, OR, Should It Be?

 

The lucid the law, lucid its implementation. And minimal the terms, the better the understandings. In the end, if the Demand is not filed, then ISA/WO becomes IPRP published before the regional entry. And if the Demand is filed, then the IPRP becomes IPER == IPRP –> II, aka Chapter II, issued by the IPEA. Thus, would it be wrong to call IPER as mere IPRP (interchangeably) without using the term Chapter – II or I, and by mere adding/subtracting the term, IPRP with Demand? Thus, when the Demand is filed, it’s also IPRP, and when the Demand is not filed, then too it’s IPRP. Rather using the terms IPEA -> IPER -> IPRP-Chapter -  II; or ISA/WO -> IPRP - Chapter-I; would it be improper to use IPRP without Demand, or IPRP with Demand. In any case, the ISR/WO probably converts to IPRP without demand, or, IPER by IPEA is converted to IPRP-CH-II with Demand.

This Is Amusing……

This is amusing! I read this article (Philosopher finds glitch in worldwide patent laws). But, if you go through my blogs on my blog portal, then not only I’ve found flaws in the Worldwide Patent Laws, but also in the Madrid Procedures, BERNE Convention, w.r.t. Examination Reports issued under the ISA (IPRP, SISA, ISR, or Local FERs), and how they’re in contradiction with the examination reports issued in the Trademark Applications at local laws; and on what grounds the Natural Person / Co-Inventor should include AI and Robots, with respect to Reason and Logic, and many others, and wherein why the AI Systems generating sub-AI Systems should be included under the list of Providers/Deployers/Operators too; First.

Just because I don’t send my writings in any of the formal journals, newspapers; nor I’m a part of academia, corporate or media; and restrict this data further to my own blogs only and furthermore include it in my IP books that I publish separately:

NOBEL VS AI

In my previous blogs, I discussed the cusp where AI can, or, ought to have been considered as an Inventor, if not an Applicant, or atleast a Joint Applicant or one of the inventor signing the declaration of inventorship.

Further, I discussed and tried to distinguish w.r.t. computer generated literary works, that in those circumstances, the author ought to have been included under the copyright act universally, restricted to literary and dramatic works only, and NOT the artistic works. I gave the reason, example and analogy of Computer vs. Typewriter whilst including under definition of Section 2(d)(vi) of the copyrights act; the definition which is globally accepted and is as per the BERNE CONVENTION too.

The Specifications and ITS Many Dilemmas

 

In one my previous blogs I discussed that, even in u/s 10(4)(c) and 10(5) or u/r 13 of Patents, it’s not precisely mentioned how the structure of the Claims should be defined, except the non-mandatory guidelines of WIPO that’s been followed. And if further you read Article 6 of the PCT, it defines that Claims should be precise and concise. But in Rule 6.3 (c) of the Regulations, what exactly it mentions? It states that:

‘where the national law of the designated State does not require the manner of claiming provided for in paragraph (b), failure to use that manner of claiming shall have no effect in that State provided the manner of claiming actually used satisfies the national law of that State.’

The Dilemma of S. 2(d)(vi) in the Copyright

 

What it says; says every section and article around World that defines an Author, when it comes to the computer generated related work:

‘…..in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created…..’

Now, I’m not invoking the Natural person concept in the current scenario. But if you closely look around the definition, it mentions that a computer-generated work, wherein the person who generates that work becomes the author, and not the person who has made that program. But herein the dilemma ensues.

Notice the difference herein, as this section ought to have been only applicable for the ‘literary and dramatic’ works; and NEVER for the ‘artistic’ works. How? Take these examples.

AI vs Provider vs TMs, And Dilemmas About Identities!

 

In the EU AI Act of 2024, in the definition of the Provider, it includes two specific terms: first is ‘…..legal person…..’ and another is ‘……puts the AI system into service under its own NAME or TRADEMARK….’. I would be restricting to the Trademark definition that further involves ‘legal person’ and as in my book also, I discussed the famous case of DABUS when deriving an analogy between AI as a Natural Person and the Machine itself.

Now, we are all familiar with the AI machines run by several companies, have their own names. Whether there’s DABUS, GEMINI, CoPilot, Optimus the Tesla Bot, OpenAI, and the list goes on and on.