Re: [Patents] Artificial intelligence with ethical sense patented

[Jean-Marc Le Peuvédic <cocktails@freesurf.fr>]

Jonas Maebe wrote:

> On 23 aug 2004, at 12:13, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > Isn't it a requirement for any Patent Office, to provide at least a
> > functioning prototype for the "technologies" claimed?
>
>
> No, afaik this has even never been the case and it's also one of the 
> arguments used to oppose requiring source code for software patents.
>
>
> Jonas
The examiner guidelines only say that the patent examiner must be 
convinced that the inventor has a working prototype. Some would think 
that it would be much simpler if a demonstration was required, but there 
are professionals of deception who perform magic  performance on scene 
and would find a second job setting up impressive fake demonstrations. 
Busting willfully deceptive performances performed by skilled magicians 
is a professionnal's job, not a patent examiner's job.

For instance, if one needs to demonstrate an emotional computer, you can 
build it large enough to house a dwarf inside, and invoke some weird 
manufacturing process to explain why you cannot open it up. Of course 
you should be able to point the elements described in your patent to the 
examiner, but since they are software components, you can dispense with 
that too.

Jean-Marc Le Peuvédic