Ironically, this has already been done.<p>See <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-company-claims-it-uses-algorithms-to-create-content-faster-than-creators-can-making-all-future-creations-infringing.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140929/08500728662/new-c...</a>, <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-attack-the-net-from-the-future-140928/" rel="nofollow">https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-attack-...</a>.<p>Sadly it appears to have died but can still be viewed at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150109080014/http://www.qentis.com/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20150109080014/http://www.qentis...</a> and <a href="https://archive.is/w6wLc" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/w6wLc</a>
Yeah, a judge is not going to find "prior art" generated by an algorithm sufficient to invalidate a patent. As a political statement, this is fine (though hand-wavy), but silly as a practical solution.<p>Edit: That said, we do need to fix the patent system. The problem, right now, is human: there needs to be political will, effected by people, to persuade Congress to change the laws. An algorithm does not do that.<p>Although it's possible this thing is a joke, in which case, well played.
If we can digitally describe something as a sequence of bytes, and we stack those bytes end-to-end, can we not say that the bytes together form a (very large) integer, and that the integer already appears in the set of natural numbers?
Neat. The landing page has some examples: <a href="http://allpriorart.com/" rel="nofollow">http://allpriorart.com/</a><p>I don't think this is intended to actually create prior art that could be used in a patent dispute, but as an art project it's well-executed.
Cool concept as art, but is basically a patent version of infinite monkeys on typewriters hoping to write Shakespeare.<p>That said, with a bit of guideance such as learning/ feedback and/or being routed around an initial framework (perhaps TRIZ or similar <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ</a>), there could be a much higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen other attempts at invention through AI or algorithm - as dmritard says, the key to useful invention isn't generation, its filtering the noise.<p>Although as others have said, I doubt this would be admissable in court. Randomly generated 'claims' remain random: one could say in an infinite, random universe, surely every invention has already been created simply by matter composing itself in the approprieate way.
Prior art doesn't matter anymore, it's first to file.<p><a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/prior-art-america-invents-uspto-explains-first-to-file/id=19571/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/04/prior-art-america-inven...</a><p><a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/11/a-simple-guide-to-the-aia-oddities-first-to-file/id=45104/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/11/a-simple-guide-to-the-a...</a>
this is really cool. For a long time I wanted to make an internet noise machine that would make nsa surveillance too expensive/difficult. This feels like that same concept but for IP.
This is very likely useless. Prior art has to be an "enabling disclosure" - which isn't the same as the 112 enablement requirement but it does requires that the public is "in possession" of the invention. This algorithm just makes short phrases or maybe a sentence or two that make sense together. It is unlikely that this is enough to put the public "in possession" of anything. There are problems to be solved in the patent system, but this is not a solution to any of them. See <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html</a><p>edit: so apparently this guy is an 'artist' so maybe this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Perhaps its just a commentary on the absurdity of the patent system. If that's the goal, then cool, I think he's made a point.
not to be a buzzkill, but it'd be beneficial to <i>reduce</i> the data set examiners (and defendants) have to sift through to find relevant prior art. speaking as an ex-examiner, that's the biggest problem, separating the signal from noise from an already poorly written data set.
Digital representation of everything that was & will ever be done is already public domain: π.<p>Now to look for it… <a href="https://github.com/fenollp/minepi/blob/master/README.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/fenollp/minepi/blob/master/README.md</a>