[gyulai]

> The EU trails the US not only in the absolute number of AI-related patents but also in AI specialisation – the share of AI patents relative to total patents.

E.U. patent law takes a very different attitude towards software patents than the U.S. Even if that wasn't the case: “Specialisation” means that no innovation unrelated to AI gets mind share, investment, patent applications. And that's somehow a good thing? Not something you can just throw out there as a presupposition without explaining your reasoning.

[dash2]

> “Specialisation” means that no innovation unrelated to AI gets mind share, investment, patent applications. And that's somehow a good thing?

I don’t think the authors claim we should have 100% specialisation. They just say that the fact that the EU has fewer AI-related patents as a proportion of the total (less specialisation) is evidence that it is behind in AI. That seems reasonable.

[direwolf20]

Or it's ahead in not–AI.

[eternauta3k]

EU firms don't file EU patents necessarily, but rather in the relevant countries (including USA).

[amelius]

Makes me wonder how AI will influence the work of patent officers.

Perhaps it will make patent trolling a bit harder because it is easier to look up existing work and to check if an idea is obvious?

[embedding-shape]

> Perhaps it will make patent trolling a bit harder because it is easier to look up existing work and to check if an idea is obvious?

Haha, funny :)

No, it'll be like the rest of the industries that use more AI, they'll spend the same amount of effort (as little as possible) and won't validate anything, and provide worse service, not better. AIslop is everywhere, and seemingly unavoidable for companies to use more and more to cut more corners.