We Must Remain Open to the Future Possibilities of AI—Even if it Means Replacing Humans

“To conclude that AI serving as an aid to human thinking is necessarily better than possibly replacing some aspects of human decision making, when we simply don’t yet have the technological capability to test one over the other, would fall into the logical fallacy of equating a presumption with a conclusion.”

In response to our recent article on artificial intelligence (AI) reducing transactional costs to help determine infringement and invalidity determinations, a commenter made an interesting counterpoint, paraphrased as the following: AI provides useful tools that should be used as an aid to human thinkers, not as a replacement to human thinking. Moreover, when it comes to AI making subjective determinations, such as obviousness or novelty, we should be skeptical of relying on AI, either legally or practically.

We appreciate the counterpoint and we wanted to address it in this follow-up article.

How do we determine the best role for AI in our patent system?  If we have a choice between AI serving as an aid to human thinking, or possibly replacing some aspects of human decision making, what is the correct choice?  What would better serve to improve our patent system?

What Constitutes ‘Improvement’?

To have a productive discussion re AI’s proper place in our patent system, we need to first understand what “improvement” to our patent system means. When we have common ground as to how to assess improvement, only then we can discuss which role of AI would better implement that improvement.

To frame our understanding of such improvement, let us look at the patent system as it stands today.

The judiciary sits in the middle of the patent-transaction ecosystem. When presented with a case, the judiciary performs a two-step process. It takes on the role as (1) the arbiter of factual and legal contentions between parties, and (2) the enforcer of its ultimate decision. In its role as arbiter, the court determines informational attributes relating to patent validity, scope, and infringement. After this determination is made, it then enforces that decision.

In this system, the presumption is that the basic informational attributes of a patent are either unknown or at best contested, and we need the court system to make this determination.

Herein lies the problem with our patent system. Relying on the court to determine basic informational attributes of a patent is both costly and inefficient. It costs millions of dollars and takes several years to determine whether the patent is valid, infringed, and the damages.

Because the court is so inefficient at making these informational determinations regarding a patent, enforcement costs in turn are extremely high.

Further, these information and enforcement costs are intermingled; meaning, you cannot enforce a patent unless the same court system first determines the basic informational attributes of a patent, resulting in a costly self-perpetuating cycle of inefficiency.

Why is this important to understand when framing a discussion about the patent system and patent transactions within that system?

As Douglass C. North pointed out in his 1992 paper “Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic Performance,” the framework of our patent system creates the actors that operate within it.

The constraints imposed by the institutional framework (together with the other standard constraints of economics) define the opportunity set and therefore the kind of organizations that will come into existence.

North gave a very powerful example:

If the highest rates of return in a society are from piracy, then organizations will invest in knowledge and skills that will make them better pirates; if the payoffs are highest from increasing productivity, then firms and other organizations will invest in skills and knowledge that achieve that objective.

In our present-day patent system, extremely high informational costs create the economic driver to reduce enforcement and bargaining costs between parties in a patent transaction.

Put another way, the court system’s high informational cost structure creates a driver to minimize enforcement costs, which manifests in today’s patent litigation as early settlements that are below the cost of determining the informational attributes of a patent.

Put yet another way, the court system’s high informational cost structure creates the economic driver for low-value and “nuisance” patent litigation (see part I and part II of an analysis relating to how we have historically misdirected patent policy to deter such “nuisance” patent litigation).

North recognized the central role of informational costs: “[t]he cost of transacting arises because information is costly and held asymmetrically by the parties to exchange.”

What is the Ideal System? 

In a perfect patent system, the informational attributes of a patent are efficient to determine and known to both parties. When informational costs are low and informational attributes are known to both parties, the following occurs:

North describes this as the “zero-cost transaction.”  This is a perfect system in which there are no transactional costs between a patent holder and an alleged infringer reaching an agreement on a patent transaction. The only money spent, if any, is for the value of a patent license.

So, when we are thinking about patent reform, the discussion should be centered on “how do we approach a zero-cost transaction for patent transactions?”  This sets the standard for “improvement.”

Bringing AI into the Equation

Assuming we are on the same page regarding what it means to improve our patent system, this frames the next question: between (1) AI serving as an aid to human thinking, or (2) possibly replacing some aspects of human decision making, which of the two better serves to improve our patent system?

At this point, I don’t believe we can actually answer that question, because we don’t live in a world where AI can reliably replace aspects of human thinking with respect to our patent system.

But to conclude one is necessarily better than the other, when we simply don’t have the technological capability to test one over the other, would fall into the logical fallacy of equating a presumption with a conclusion.

Instead, North would offer a different approach. He described characteristics of successful institutions. Namely, institutions that allow for decentralized decision-making and trial and error see greater success over time.

Therefore, institutions should encourage trials and eliminate errors. A logical corollary is decentralized decision making that will a society to explore many alternative ways to solve problems.

Applying North’s teachings to our patent system, he would recommend we test different methodologies to determine informational attributes of a patent and learn through trial and error which methodology best reduces informational costs. Only when we have the opportunity to apply and test different methodologies to determine informational attributes of a patent will we truly learn which method is best.

Don’t Put the Cart Before the Horse

North certainly factored in the use of technology and technology’s role in an institution:

Institutions, together with the technology employed, affect economic performance by determination transaction and transformation (production) costs.

Relying on the teachings of North, we should actively test AI in different applications and scenarios and determine which would allow us to approach a zero-cost transaction, particularly zero costs to determine the informational attributes of a patent.

But to enable us to test AI effectively, we cannot foreclose ourselves to the possibility that AI’s proper place could be to actually replace some aspects of human thinking.

If AI replacing human decision making in certain circumstances would enable a zero-cost patent transaction, then this may be the proper place for AI in the patent system. But if using AI as a mere tool to aid human thinking enables us to approach this zero-cost transaction, then this may instead be the best role for AI.

In essence, let’s not put the cart before the horse when making determinations regarding AI’s proper role in our patent system. To improve our patent system, we need to come to common understanding on the key problem it faces, namely, its unsound economic underpinnings. And we need to allow ourselves greater flexibility to test different methods and technology to improve the patent system by helping us to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, the high costs and inefficiencies of determining the informational attributes of a patent.

The Author

Gau Bodepudi

Gau Bodepudi Is the Managing Director at and co-founder of IP EDGE LLC. He has more than 12 years experience in all aspects of patent management and monetization, including strategic prosecution, litigation, licensing, brokering, and portfolio management within various technological fields such as ecommerce, consumer electronics, networking, financial services, mobile communications, and automotive technologies. Mr. Bodepudi also created a patent monetization blog, InvestInIP.com, where he writes on patent reform and policy

Gau Bodepudi

Eesha Kumar is an intern at IP EDGE LLC. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in political science from The University of Georgia and is planning on attending law school.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 31 Comments comments.

  1. Erich Spangenberg May 20, 2021 5:43 am

    A very intelligent way to think about AI and other exponential tech. Even if you disagree, if you might have a 10+ year useful life left in the IP space (to say nothing of a longer career) can you afford to take the chance Gau is wrong? In a few years is it that hard to anticipate that IP professionals that understand and learn to utilize AI to deliver high-value services in an AI-enabled world will likely still exist — those that do not, likely will not.

  2. Anon May 20, 2021 11:19 am

    Mr. Spangenberg,

    I found your comment to be a bit odd.

    Is not the purpose of AI to augment human action? What exactly would be (my take – apologies if this was not your thrust) some ‘extra step’ of “understand and learn to utilize?”

    AI will most likely be rolled out TO BE merely used without effort. That’s kind of the allure, is it not?

  3. Pro Say May 20, 2021 2:25 pm

    Unlike as is the case for chess-playing and the like, for infringement and invalidity determinations, artificial intelligence . . . is . . . and will forever be . . . more artificial . . . than it is . . . intelligent.

    Beautiful minds will always be needed for such determinations.

    Always.

  4. George May 20, 2021 7:48 pm

    Need more articles like this! What I’ve been arguing for, for years! We finally have the tools needed to do this!

    “North describes this as the “zero-cost transaction.” This is a perfect system in which there are no transactional costs between a patent holder and an alleged infringer reaching an agreement on a patent transaction. The only money spent, if any, is for the value of a patent license.”

    But tell it to Anon, who hates this idea! He’s stuck in the 20th century and doesn’t want anything to change (particularly if it could cost his job). The goal of a ‘new’ patent system should be to get ‘transaction costs’ down to ZERO (or as close to that as possible), so as incentivise much more innovations and so as to maximize profits for inventors and businesses, not middlemen! The later profit the most from creating unnecessary conflicts and confusion (this includes the USPTO that helps to protect the large players and monopolies)!

  5. George May 20, 2021 8:12 pm

    @Erich Spangenberg

    “In a few years is it that hard to anticipate that IP professionals that understand and learn to utilize AI to deliver high-value services in an AI-enabled world will likely still exist — those that do not, likely will not.”

    Absolutely and what I’ve been saying for several years now too! In fact I’m investing in it!

    But, it’s different when the shoe’s on the other foot, isn’t it? Then all the benefits and cost savings from computers suddenly don’t look so good, when those savings will come at your expense! Nevertheless, what’s good for the goose has to be good for the gander too, doesn’t it?

    And, AI wouldn’t just be used by ‘professionals’. The whole point of it would be to allow ANYONE to use these SAME tools! Just like people can now prepare their own taxes (either for free, or for just $30 – in one hour or less)!

    The day when they will be able to do that same thing with patent applications for maybe $100 (+ NO maintenance fees), I’ll pop several bottle of champaign! Then I may be able to buy a yacht too – not just my lawyer!

    Let’s hear it for the possibility of no more astronomically expensive ‘squabbling’ about the ‘meaning of words’! Let’s hear it for the cold, hard, objective logical and ‘consistent’ decision making skills of computers! Let’s hear it for no more ‘hidden’, ‘forgotten’ or ‘obscure’ prior art, since computers will be able to find all of it (in at most hours)! Let’s hear it for ‘expert’ decision making again, especially when it comes to science and technology! It’s clear that lawyers and judges are NOT experts in 21st technology, science and inventions! They may have been adequate to handle 19th century inventions, but not 21st century ones! After all, how many academic scientific papers do they read every week? Computers can read them all – and I do mean ALL!

    Nothing will get by a computer (not even a grammatical or spelling mistake) – nothing! Big or small, NO MISTAKES will get by a computer ( the first time around). Also, computers don’t get tired, irritable, have their egos hurt, carry grudges or biases or have any political leanings, either! They also can’t be corrupted by money or special interests. I like that last part especially, don’t you?

  6. George May 20, 2021 8:26 pm

    “apologies if this was not your thrust”

    Ohhhhh what a difference just having a law degree makes when it comes to getting respect, and being responded to without insult (even if the very same things are being said – exactly – and can even be ‘quoted’)! ROFL!!!!!!!

    Yeah, computers DON’T CARE who you are, Anon! Another thing I really like about them! They also don’t care if you are a man or a women, or if you are Black or White! Humans can’t touch that!

    Now, as I was saying about computers and AI already MANY months back, Anon . . . ROFL (again)!!! Yeah, maybe you better worry about them computers after all! A ‘lawyer’ has now said you should!!! LOL! Makes all the difference, right?! Even better if Donald Trump would have said these same things, right Anon? LOL!

  7. George May 20, 2021 8:52 pm

    “Beautiful minds will always be needed for such determinations.”

    LOL!!! You mean like lawyers and judges – NOT trained in 21st century science and technology (or even 20th century science and technology)? You mean ‘technical experts’ like that, who know the difference between ‘new’ and ‘not so new’?! You mean like all the lawyers and judges who decide on who gets a Nobel Prize every year and who doesn’t? You mean those that litigate who got and didn’t get a Nobel Prize every year? You mean like all those lawyers, judges and (lay) juries that do that every year??? LOL!!!

    You will be proven TOTALLY wrong within less than a decade, Pro Say and that’s when I’ll start cashing out my stock options too! You on the other hand may be asking for handouts by then!

    Did you also bet on climate change just being a ‘hoax’ too?! It’s very obvious you know NOTHING about where we are now with AI if you are talking about 1980’s chess playing computers (‘and the like’)!!! How about their now being able to drive cars in novel environments?! How about their being able to do surgery? How about reading X-rays (as good or better than ANY human radiologist that gets paid $300K/year)? How about robots being able to walk over all kinds of terrain and also able to do back flips?! Can YOU do a back flip, Pro Say?! I’d like to see that! LOL!

    Till then, I’ll be ‘investing heavily’ in AI driven patent preparation and analysis software – especially AI driven prior art search (not confined to just patents)! I’ll also be using it! Later on, there also could be patent guided and judged litigation (and settlement), as well! Costs for that will then come down by at least TWO orders of magnitude! No more multi-million dollar patent infringement suits that drag on for years! By 2040 they’ll be settled within weeks (for less than $50K).

    Again, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, right Pro Say?! Always has been! How do you think we can now develop new drugs and vaccines in months instead of years? Because humans now work 10,000 times faster? Because lawyers do (for the same money)? Time to embrace what you DEFINITIVELY can’t defeat! Haven’t you heard, “Resistance Is Futile”?! Investment is a much better way to go in that new world!

  8. Anon May 21, 2021 6:37 am

    Diarrhea attack – please clean up after yourself, George.

    Again, you make a false attribution of my feelings — disconnected to anything that I have actually stated.

    The caveat to Mr. Spangenberg was in recognition that his writing had some flexibility, and I recognized that it could be taken in more than one way — and I sought clarity.

    You might take note of how that is done.

    It would be a vast improvement for your writing style from its current tendencies to assert feelings (and political beliefs) as strawmen, unrelated to the actual words at hand.

    For one point, you seem oblivious to my stated positions against making obtaining patents to be a Sport of Kings. For another, you confuse my rightfully pointing out current limitations of AI as if I “hated” AI or any of its development. Such is utter nonsense on your part.

    You continue to insert copious non sequiturs — as if they make up in volume what they sorely lack in being on point.

    And you repeat these banal tactics thread after thread after thread.

    These tactics did not work the first time. They do not work now.

    All they do is impugn any position that you may want to advocate for and taint that position with inanity.

    I “get” that you have your favorite soapbox. I really do. But you would do well to actually spend a moment to understand what people post and not be so quick to lash out at your strawmen.

  9. George May 21, 2021 12:39 pm

    It’s absolutely clear now that you’re an ‘ass’ and a ‘hack’, Anon! Case closed! You haven’t had an ‘original’ or ‘progressive’ idea in your life! Within a decade you’ll be lucky to be working at a Wendy’s! LOL!

    How do you like that for brevity and succinctness? I think it says it all, don’t you?

    P.S. You’re also a coward, Anon (who’s afraid to reveal your identity). Why aren’t the other lawyers here afraid to do that? What are you hiding, Anon? No respectable and ‘self-confident’ lawyer would do that.

  10. George May 21, 2021 12:55 pm

    @Anon #8

    “The caveat to Mr. Spangenberg was in recognition that his writing had some flexibility, and I recognized that it could be taken in more than one way”

    NO IT COULDN’T!!! What he said was ‘crystal clear’ (just like what I have always said). Yes, I actually AVOID being ‘diplomatic’ because that can waste a lot of time and we don’t have time to waste anymore when it comes to solving our many problems (including with IP). Also, a scientist’s intent is NOT to be ‘flexible’ in their ‘conclusions’ (or they don’t make any)! They try to be ‘definitive’ as much as possible (at least the good ones). Scientists DON’T DO ‘wishy-washy’ like you, Anon! Just ask someone like Dr. Fauci (rather than someone like Donald Trump or any of his sycophants)!

  11. George May 21, 2021 3:59 pm

    ‘An Examiner’, June 27, 2020 5:25 pm

    “Also, the patent office is in the process of training an AI algorithm to do the initial CPC classifications in an attempt to replace the contractors that currently do the initial classification.”

    Why do that if the contractors were so good at it, Anon? Why not just leave patent law alone? What else might the PTO do over the next decade? That actually makes me somewhat hopeful that things will get better and not worse! As far as I’m concerned, we can’t have enough AI and as soon as possible, since things are totally screwed up (and maybe even corrupt) now!

  12. Anon May 21, 2021 6:07 pm

    George,

    You keep on proving me correct about your inanities. It simply does not help brevity and succinctness to be so wrong in even a brief and succinct manner. Sure, there is less ‘mess’ to wade through, but it is STILL a mess.

    I love the fact that YOU (yet again) seek to impugn my Moral Rights of posting with anonymity or with use of a pseudonym – while your own use of a single name has zero amount more of any bravery.

    Great example of you being inane – making a mindless accusation that YOU fall into every bit as much as the person you attempt to impugn.

    And then you go on to show your ignorance as to the Spangenberg post (and my politeness to Mr. Spangenberg for that reason). What’s the matter, George? Are you jealous that I afforded someone some slack, but come down on you for your consistent miscues?

    I love the fact that you retreat to some odd political statement about Dr. Fauci. You want to talk about a horse’s behind? Someone steeped in being wishy-washy? How many times did he flip-flop over the span of the pandemic? Have you seen any if his Gain of Function testimony?

    That you trot this out only shows YOU to be the sycophant.

    Not surprising that you level insults when they fit you.

    Your last post is more inanity – as you again appear to want to ascribe to me a position that I have not taken. It is a most odd – and most ineffectual tactic of yours.

  13. Curious May 22, 2021 8:15 pm

    Relying on the teachings of North, we should actively test AI in different applications and scenarios and determine which would allow us to approach a zero-cost transaction, particularly zero costs to determine the informational attributes of a patent.
    And how are we going to do that? How can you perform an apple-to-apples comparison. A patent litigation is not some series of data points that could be presented to a human as well as an AI such that an apples-to-apples comparison can be made between the two.

    As a practical matter, what party is going to subject themselves to an AI-judged litigation? Are you going to risk a $10M judgement on the hope that the AI judge will see things your way? The stakes are too high.

    Again, as a practical matter, how does one even train an AI to act as a judge? I know a little about machine learning (and its various flavors) and while it has its uses, how do you train it, for example, to apply case law? As we know, there is a lot of case law that is hopelessly inconsistent.

    Find me an AI to correctly construe a claim term, and then we can start talking about the AI doing more, but I doubt that such an AI (capable of correctly construing a claim term) will exist anytime in the next couple of decades.

  14. Anon May 23, 2021 7:40 am

    Well Curious, we have disagreed of late, but here we are in accord:

    As we know, there is a lot of case law that is hopelessly inconsistent.

    George merely sees the chance to climb atop his soapbox and pontificate. To him, it simply does not matter that he lacks the awareness to see that we are just not where he wants to be.

  15. George May 24, 2021 9:40 pm

    “As we know, there is a lot of case law that is hopelessly inconsistent.”

    That’s a big part of the problem that computers could help remedy – once and for all! Their decisions WOULD be have to be consistent (unless their programming had a serious flaw). Also, a computer would not actually make a final decision, only provide a ‘grading’ of pro and con arguments and the most relevant and recent case law relating to each dispute (and do that in minutes)!

    Final decisions would still be subject to judicial review (just like lower court decisions can be now). But, a ‘human led’ court would likely agree with a computer driven analysis and its conclusions in most cases (at least those were the computer is at least 70% confident). In the case where confidence levels are lower, then ‘human’ patent law experts could take a closer look and override a computer’s opinion (which wouldn’t have to be binding). There could even be further appeals after that, just like now (however the odds of overturning a computer’s conclusion being much worse than now! When both parties are presented the computer’s ‘objective’ and ‘unbiased’, ‘expert opinion’, then decisions to appeal would have to take the computer’s confidence level into account! If you think the PTAB is ‘tough’ now, then imagine it being run by ‘heartless computers’! And a human lead court would generally agree with a computer’s decisions, particularly as time progressed and the computer’s abilities continued to improve.

    A computer’s abilities would very quickly exceed those of ‘any human’, as is the case with most things they are trained to do. Parties to any dispute would then be much more motivated to settle ‘quickly’, rather than drag things out and risk having to pay additional legal fees (which could become enormous) and even lead to treble damages, or worse! So, that $10M dispute could easily grow to $30M+ if someone were to just bet against the computer, without careful consideration of its ‘confidence level’! After all, patent law is JUST ANOTHER (very expensive) GAME now! Everyone always needs to play the odds but I certainly would never bet against a well trained and programmed computer – that’s for sure! In fact, most people wouldn’t even be able to compete against an old Commodore 64, much less a modern super-computer like IBM’s Watson! I’d love to try to debate Watson though! . . . It might actually be fun to get my brain (and ass) whupped (for a change)!

    But remember, we are only talking about ‘civil cases’ here, not criminal ones. So no one is going to get the death penalty because a computer would say so! The eventual goal in using computers for law and patent examination, would be to get a series of rules and decisions that would FINALLY be consistent over time (unless Congress and the people intentionally wanted to change those rules for some reason).

    “Again, as a practical matter, how does one even train an AI to act as a judge?”

    Same way as you train a car to drive itself in all kinds of weather and road condition, how you get a robot to dance and do back flips, and how you get one to read X-rays, BETTER than most radiologists! I don’t think you really know anything about AI and computer learning (at least not anything going on in the 21st century)! We’re WAY past chess playing computers (that could already beat all humans in the 1990’s).

  16. George May 24, 2021 9:55 pm

    Washington Examiner???? A trustworthy publication if there ever was one! One (small) step up from the National Enquirer and best friends with the equally dubious Washington Times! The preferred source of information for attorneys everywhere! ROFL!!!!

    Yup, Fauci and other scientists are always willing to examine new data, new ‘facts’ and new conclusions – from ‘experts’ (as opposed to politically driven hacks and publications). But, unfortunately in this case the truth will have to await actual ‘leaks’ from insiders at that lab! Can’t be determined just by using outside gathered information and clues. There will eventually be some insiders that will break their silence and tell us more. The world can no longer hold secrets for very long. Till then, we won’t be able to really conclude anything. China is even far less transparent than we are! Bats or lab – take your pick for now (and maybe the odds makers in England should let people bet on that too)!

  17. George May 24, 2021 11:18 pm

    “. . . the court determines informational attributes relating to patent validity, scope, and infringement.”

    Except it can no longer do a credible or reliable job of this, whereas computers will be able to do that soon! As far as enforcement goes, computers can’t yet do that. This will have to await ‘Robocop’ (who I might also trust more than regular cops and judges, especially if I were Black)! LOL!

  18. Anon May 25, 2021 9:26 am

    You want the other end of the media spectrum, George?

    How about: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

    and that’s not even focusing on the rather embarrassing facts of what he knew and when he knew it.

  19. George May 25, 2021 2:01 pm

    @Anon #12

    “Great example of you being inane – making a mindless accusation that YOU fall into every bit as much as the person you attempt to impugn.”

    Guess we’ll see who ends up making the most money (including off of AI), getting the most patents allowed, and becoming the better known person, won’t we ‘Anon’?!

    Again, choosing to remain anonymous has NOTHING to do with ‘moral rights’ – you twit (especially since there is no such thing in America anyway)!

    If you want to be a ‘beacon of morality and ethics’ you don’t do it by remaining anonymous, do you?! In fact, you have a moral and ethical OBLIGATION to be held accountable for what you do in life, especially if it affects others and to be able to do that, society has to know who you are! When it comes to ‘ethics’, you WANT people to know who you are, so they can easily distinguish you from people who may not be as ethical, don’t you?! You WANT TO make a good name for yourself (not be accused of being a Nazi sympathizer, or something like that)! You WANT TO prove that you have led an ethical life (and not the opposite)! I’m sure that Michael Avenatti, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, among others (all clearly fine examples of ‘upstanding lawyers’ in constant pursuit of the truth) maybe now wish they never went into law or practiced their ‘moral rights’ (as you define them), right Anon?! ROFL!

    As I said, I will probably will not be remaining anonymous for long! How about you (and don’t start in with the ‘moral rights’ stuff again – you ‘moral coward’)! In any case you can’t keep things secret on the internet for long. So, better get off it entirely if you really want to do that. I’m sure at least a dozen people here already know who you are, and I’ll find out eventually (you ‘weaselly coward’)! What lawyer tries SO HARD to remain anonymous??!!! NOT a good look (or advertising), Anon. More like some kind of a ‘mole’ actually. Also, you clearly know NOTHING about ‘many things’ – especially science, technology, logic, computers or AI! You are at least 30 years behind on all of this! As far as Fauci goes – yeah, he wasn’t tough enough on Trump and did flip-flop under pressure from Trump. Not happy about that! He should have instead just quit and then WENT AFTER Trump and relentlessly tore him to pieces (with accurate predictions) and ‘compared’ his monthly predictions with those of Trump and all his (ignorant) sycophants!

  20. George May 25, 2021 2:57 pm

    EXACTLY!!! Right Anon? – now that an attorney has agreed with me. LOL! So, is the below too ‘inane’ for you too, Anon?! If so, please say so! Show us how ‘courageous’ you are to call it out, if it is (and no need to be ‘diplomatic’ either)!

    “Herein lies the problem with our patent system. Relying on the court to determine basic informational attributes of a patent is both costly and inefficient. It costs millions of dollars and takes several years to determine whether the patent is valid, infringed, and the damages.

    Because the court is so inefficient at making these informational determinations regarding a patent, enforcement costs in turn are extremely high.

    Further, these information and enforcement costs are intermingled; meaning, you cannot enforce a patent unless the same court system first determines the basic informational attributes of a patent, resulting in a costly self-perpetuating cycle of inefficiency.”

    Let’s replace all this with AI, OK (like I have said for at least a few years already). Let’s ‘invest’ in doing that too! I’m already doing that (and hope to cash in within a decade).

  21. Anon May 26, 2021 9:58 am

    Another one for you George: https://youtu.be/Neh29VC9J1k

    It appears that you cannot see the sycophant in the room. Here’s a hint: it is you.

  22. Anon May 26, 2021 1:40 pm

    George,

    Your rants – especially as to anonymity or pseudonymity are exemplary inanities.

    YOU really do fall into ‘pseudonym land’ every bit as much as the person you attempt to impugn. I know at least eight “George’s” and only using that first name (real or not) is just NOT an identifier beyond a pseudonym.

    Guess we’ll see who ends up making the most money (including off of AI), getting the most patents allowed, and becoming the better known person, won’t we ‘Anon’?!

    Um sure – you again trot out this ‘some future day’ shlock as if that makes your current habits any different than what you want to rail against.
    Hint: it does not.

    Again, choosing to remain anonymous has NOTHING to do with ‘moral rights’ – you twit (especially since there is no such thing in America anyway)!

    You keep on wanting to get upset about this, just as you keep on forgetting BOTH that it was you that attempted to state that we should have more of a focus on Moral Rights, AND it was you that provided a link to an article explaining what Moral Rights encompassed. I merely actually read the item you linked to and pointed out your own contradictions between the source you provided and your rants.

    In essence, you are the epitome of inanity for first pushing something, then not paying attention to the content that you yourself pushed, then sought to double down and criticize someone whose mode of communication you yourself engage in.

    For ALL of your bellyaching about the ‘travesty’ of pseudonymous or anonymous communication, you sure as heck STILL do not use a full real name, so as to distinguish your very self from the criticisms that you would seek to level.

    ‘moral coward,’ ‘weaselly coward’ – really?

    YOU fit your own accusations. Why not NOW use your own real and full name?

    Mind you, I really do not care IF you were to do so – or not. I do not need “your full real name” to be able to evaluate the content of the matter that you choose to post. Your words speak for themselves (and it is those words that speak ill of you).

    Maybe, you just want to go on having your “brain (and ass) whupped” by your own inanity.

  23. George May 28, 2021 4:53 pm

    “Another one for you George: https://youtu.be/Neh29VC9J1k

    Who the HELL are these people?!!! LOL! How embarrassing are your ‘references’ and ‘experts’? Ever hear of ‘peer review’, Anon??? And, Rand Paul is a (former) ‘ophthalmologist’ – and therefore knows NOTHING about pandemic diseases (unless of the eye)! I’ll stick with Fauci for now (unless I have an eye problem). Took his advice and know at least a dozen other people that did and never got COVID (including all of my family)! If we’d have taken Paul’s advice, I’m sure at least half of us would’ve gotten it (and, NO, Hydroxychloroquine or bleach wouldn’t have cured us)!

  24. George May 28, 2021 5:00 pm

    “Your rants – especially as to anonymity or pseudonymity are exemplary inanities.

    YOU really do fall into ‘pseudonym land’ every bit as much as the person you attempt to impugn. I know at least eight “George’s” and only using that first name (real or not) is just NOT an identifier beyond a pseudonym.”

    I’ve now proposed an easy solution for that ‘huge identity problem’ you have (not me), Anon. Are you in? Pick a date to mutually reveal our identities (but preferably next year some time). Let me know. I’m all about ‘solving’ problems, Anon (including by using computers and AI to solve them)!

  25. George May 28, 2021 5:21 pm

    “Maybe, you just want to go on having your “brain (and ass) whupped” by your own inanity.”

    And now I think it’s obvious you really need some help! No major problems with anything I’ve ever said – including about the possible need for ‘moral rights’ i this country, which we DON’T HAVE and will probably never have and which, again, have NOTHING TO DO with anonymity, since that’s actually ‘antithetical’ to them, since it makes holding people accountable for saying damaging things about another person much more difficult. Anonymity is sometimes needed by those blowing the whistle on something, especially in non-democratic countries. Have you ever blown the whistle on anything, Anon? Since I’ve always been self-employed, I’ve never had any problems blowing the whistle – without anonymity! Some might call that courageous (and some would call it stupid), but I just call it being a good citizen, who still has at least a ‘little’ faith in the law! Anonymity can be good, but also bad. Depends on the reasons for it.

  26. Anon May 30, 2021 11:23 am

    George,

    You ask, “How embarrassing are your ‘references’ and ‘experts’? Ever hear of ‘peer review’” – as if the content therein must be be a scientific journal.

    It need not be such a clinical level.

    Clearly.

    There is NO “embarrassing” – other than to those against whom the points are raised against. The embarrassing in our exchange belongs entirely to you, as you continues to display a sycophantic view of “all things Fauci” – even as (even) the captured Mainstream Media is backpedaling. I have provided numerous media pieces from across the spectrum – I suggest that you try to be less of a sycophant and actually read (and read between the lines).

    But then again, if you were not a sycophant, you would recognize all of this.

    As to Rand Paul, It is clearly NOT his role in medicine that is at point, but rather his role as an elected representative absolutely taking your ‘beloved’ Dr. Fauci behind the wood shed – and deservedly so.

    Fauci may well know about certain aspects of viral study – including (more than apparently, and certainly more than he dare admit) Gain of Function research.

    And “which” advice exactly did you take? And was that after his complicity and cover-up of the lab connection?

    As to “ Hydroxychloroquine or bleach” – why do you insist on strawmen? CLEARLY, neither of these are positions that I have ever espoused. You bring them up solely to knock them down, as if I were somehow on board with that nonsense. It is an exceptionally poor tactic of yours on these boards – as I have routinely pointed out. And yet, you seem unable to help yourself.

    As to the pseudonym-equivalent of ONLY the first name of George, your so-called “easy solution” is no solution whatsoever. This “in the future” is meaningless in the here and now. For ALL of your rants on this odd topic, the fact remains that YOU do not reveal who you really are. That you cannot see the contradiction that you yourself run full speed into only shows how inane you are.

    Further, since it is YOU that appears to have such a problem (even AFTER you yourself shared a reference that extolled how INDEED anonymity and pseudonymity DO fall under the umbrella of Moral Rights – do you even bother reading or understanding the references that YOU supplied?), ANY onus on ‘correction’ in your eyes falls squarely to you.

    and which, again, have NOTHING TO DO with anonymity, since that’s actually ‘antithetical’ to them” – clearly not

    I suggest that you actually read up on the long and valued history of anonymous and pseudonymous writings. The value extends far beyond mere whistle blowing protection.

    I’m all about ‘solving’ problems – clearly not.

    As I have also noted, I have NO problem with either anonymity or pseudonymity, as I let the content speak for itself. I really do not care exactly who you are and I would be perfectly fine if you never bothered revealing your full identity. Unlike you (clearly) I am capable of cognitive thinking on the shared words. You just do not seem capable of this simple task – no matter how bombastic you are in trumping your abilities.

  27. Anon June 3, 2021 3:52 pm

    While a lack of coverage is not surprising (given that this is a patent blog), the “what did Fauci know, when” disaster keeps on unfolding.

    It’s no wonder that George has gone quiet.

  28. George July 29, 2021 5:06 pm

    ???? Too much to drink again?!

  29. George July 29, 2021 5:10 pm

    If it did, we have to find out why!!! Not like you, I’m all for transparency & holding people accountable (for attacking the Capitol & killing 5 too). Don’t think the latter were machines (unless one’s ‘programmed’ by Trump)! I’ll still trust most machines over people (especially lawyers who’ll always look out for themselves first)!