this is a good point. Isn't one of the pre-conditions for a patent (in the US at least, this case was UK) that it be "non-obvious" ? If LLMs can shit out working solutions that infringe patents, or "trivially" reverse engineer protocols, I wonder if we will see challenges in court that it was "obvious" to ask the LLM, and therefore the patents were trivial and therefore should be invalidated?
replyThat seems to be a separate claim unrelated to their patent claims. Patents themselves are required to have all of the information that would allow someone to implement what is in the patent. Of course, there could be many ways to implement it. And a specific implementation could be further protected by trade secrets. The part that would be a trade secret is inherently not in the patent.
replyYou have to wonder if this part was approved by a qualified lawyer at all. A trade secret would describe proprietary knowledge of how to implement the technology, but would have no protection under patent law.
replyThey also repeatedly claimed "DisplayLink is not a member of OIN" when it actually is, and later when they acquiesced to the cease and desist, one of the actual engineers from the company tried to review the PR to ask for changes. It's not clear anyone there has any clue what's going on!
replyYou're saying I can't use a shell company acquisition as a means to shield certain technologies from my other agreements? Booo
replyI suspect they know that, but it reads as if they were just lazily tacking that claim on for effect. This isn't a petition to a court, this is just a demand letter. Listing out a bunch of scary damages is how demand letters often work. They don't have to go into details as to the basis of their legal claims.
reply