OK... if the machine is sold, the pat goes with right? and if the machine is broken does the pat go into public domain??
or does the PROGRAM own the patient???
then who owns the program????
P.S.
Does anyone remember the previous non human copyright case ?
Agreed. They didn’t think this one through.
Human institutions are for ... well, humans.
Abusing the language just like with gay "marriage" which had not been explicitly defined as man/woman because there was no need to.
A property right given to a non-biological/non-human entity?
This sounds fraught with stupidity and unanticipated consequences that is sure to be leveraged by evil humans.
For example, what if an AI algorithm designed by a machine (and which has the patent awarded to it) is used to generate information resulting in harm to humans.
A lawsuit for damages against a government or company could be dismissed by saying the patent holder is responsible.
I am not expert on this, but I know enough about human nature to know that there are malignant people who could and would find a way to use this stupidity.
OK... if the machine is sold, the pat goes with right? and if the machine is broken does the pat go into public domain??
or does the PROGRAM own the patient???
then who owns the program????
They say hard cases make bad law. But in this situation it is more like nut cases make bad law.