Comment by simoncion
9 months ago
> ...if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention...
Would we even be able to tell if the machine reproduced the invention covered by the claims in the patent?
I (regrettably) have my name on some US software patents. I've read the patents, have intimate knowledge of the software they claim to cover, and see nearly zero relation between the patent and the covered software. If I set a skilled programmer to the task of reproducing the software components that are supposed to be covered by the patents, I guarantee that they'd fail, and fail hard.
Back before I knew about the whole "treble damage thing" (and just how terrible many-to-most software patents are) I read many software patents. I found them to offer no hints to the programmer seeking to reproduce the covered software component or system.
If it can't be reduced to practice, then it's a vanity patent, but also, impossible to violate.
A patent application is a constructive reduction to practice. MPEP 2138.05. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2138.html#:~:tex...
Indeed, but a constructive reduction to practice means that the inventor still has to describe how it can be done. And if it's impossible, then it's not a reduction to practice, just an invalid patent.