News bits: Legalized discrimination spreads to judges; Can AI invent?; Etc.

The deep moral rot that underpins the the recent radical Christian nationalist Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative legalized discrimination against LGBQT people. That decision elevated religious freedom and rights above all other civil liberties, opening the floodgates for open discrimination against the LGBQT community is society and commerce. The rot is spreading to the legal system itself. Law & Crime writes:

Judge says SCOTUS ruling for Christian web designer means 

she doesn’t have to marry same-sex couples

The fallout from a Christian web-designer’s victory in the Supreme Court continued as a Texas judge attempted to use the ruling to deny marriage to gay couples.

Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, Texas, refused to perform same-sex marriages in 2019 on the grounds that officiating the ceremonies would conflict with her sincerely-held religious belief as a Christian.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

A NYT article discusses an ongoing debate about whether AI (artificial intelligence) can invent new things. US patent law specifies that an inventor cannot get their idea from another natural person.[1] AI is not another natural person. At least, that is how I understood the law and what AI is. Based on that understanding, AI could invent something and the person who sees the invention can file a patent application that claims the invention. 

Apparently, (i) it's more complicated than that, and (ii) I am one of a small but growing number, of people who believe that AI a human can invent something. That belief is based directly on the language of the law. The NYT writes:

Generative artificial intelligence, the technology engine powering the popular ChatGPT chatbot, seems to have a limitless bag of tricks. It can produce on command everything from recipes and vacation plans to computer code and molecules for new drugs.

But can A.I. invent?

Legal scholars, patent authorities and even Congress have been pondering that question. The people who answer “yes,” a small but growing number, are fighting a decidedly uphill battle in challenging the deep-seated belief that only a human can invent.

But patent arbiters generally agree on one thing: An inventor has to be human, at least under current standards. 

The project has experienced mixed results so far with patent authorities around the world. South Africa granted it a patent for a heat-diffusing drink container that was generated by A.I., and most countries, including China, have not yet made a determination. In the United States, Australia and Taiwan, [AI-generated] patent claims have been turned down.

Germaine's reasoning

Since patent law does not specify how an inventor can make an invention, simply reading and understanding the output from AI content can constitute the act of invention. Reading AI output without understanding it falls short of the legal act of invention. The people who wrote the AI program could not know what outputs would result from the various inputs that different people feed into AI. Therefore, the inventors of the AI program, which might be copyrightable[2], could not be the inventors of AI output.

Important people's reasoning

But, Germaine is, as usual, a pesky outlier in his reasoning. Big corporations who can just smell thousands of new patents within their grasp make a different argument. One expert makes a purely economic argument. His argument is completely detached from the literal language of the applicable law. In short, important people argue that rejecting patent claims that an inventor got from AI “deprives an entire class of important and potentially lifesaving patentable inventions of any protections” and that “jeopardizes billions in current and future investments” by undermining the incentive that patent protection would provide. The federal appeals court that oversees all patent disputes rejected AI originated claims and the out of its depth[3] Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  

Footnotes: 

1. The law:

VII. AN INVENTOR OR JOINT INVENTOR MUST BE A NATURAL PERSON

35 U.S.C. 115 requires that a US patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) shall include the name of the inventor or inventors. 35 U.S.C. 100(f) defines the term “inventor” as the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 100(g) defines the terms “joint inventor” and “coinventor” as any one of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint invention. As provided in 37 CFR 1.41(b), an applicant may name the inventorship of a non-provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in the Application Data Sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, or in the inventor’s oath or declaration in accordance with 37 CFR 1.63. See MPEP § 602.01.

2. The situation appears to be similar for copyrights. Three basic requirements for copyright protection are (i) what is protected must be a work of authorship, (ii) it must be original, and (iii) it must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, e.g., written down on paper, stored in fixed computer memory, recorded, etc. 

3. One reason I retired from practicing patent law was that the US Supreme Court was increasingly out of its depth. It was unable to grasp the basic fundamentals of patent law and the basics of the science involved in patent claims and technical inventions. The current situation where the Supreme Court has upheld rejecting AI-originated patent claims is simply wrong in my opinion. Apparently the court, in its arrogant ignorance, does not understand basic patent law. If the plaintiffs did not argue the inventorship issue, then that was malpractice, again in my opinion. 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

More radical right moral rot: The Hill writes:

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that an Indianapolis Catholic high school was allowed to fire its guidance counselor because she is in a same-sex marriage.

Shelly Fitzgerald was fired from Roncalli High School in Indianapolis in 2018 after working there for 14 years after the school discovered that she is married to a woman. Fitzgerald sued the school over her firing.

What is immensely galling about this is that Catholic high schools are tax exempt. That unjustifiable generosity is forced on all Americans. The schools not only pay little or no taxes, they openly discriminate against people that God hates. God hates a lot of people. God is cruel and uncaring about the suffering he causes to people he hates. Or, is it just a matter of God's servants going rogue and doing bad things against God's will? Or, should this be spun another way?

Getting away with…

… well, murder. 

It’s been almost 30 years since O.J. Simpson was the talk of the town.  Many of us saw the trial, heard the evidence, drew our own conclusions.  So, what do you think?

Did O.J. get away with murder? 

If you’re old enough to remember it, and your answer is no, he didn’t do it, what convinced you of his innocence?  What gave you that necessary “reasonable doubt?”

If yes, he did it, what was the most convincing evidence to you.  Here are some reminders:

Criminal Trial Evidence

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

Do you believe the police planted evidence?

Did the police bungle the job?

Was this “pay back” time, as has been said?

Other thoughts on that case.

I raise this OP question because, in light of Trump’s upcoming trials, I’m wondering if Trump will “get away with” all the shenanigans he’s been seemingly involved in.  Will it end up just like O.J.’s case, where all the evidence in the world won’t be convincing enough?  So, while you’re at it, comment on Trump’s potential trial outcomes.

News bits: Regrets from Faux News employees; The futility of arguing with self-identity; Etc.

The Hill reports that three former executives at Faux News now regret helping to build Faux into a disinformation machine:

A trio of former Fox executives said in a joint statement Wednesday that they are disappointed in themselves for helping build up the corporation in its early days, labeling Fox a “disinformation machine.”

“For what little it may, or may not, be worth at this point, Preston Padden, Ken Solomon and Bill Reyner wish to express their deep disappointment for helping to give birth to Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox Television that came to include Fox News Channel — the channel that prominently includes news that, in the words of Sidney Powell’s counsel, ‘no reasonable person would believe,’” the three former executives wrote in a blog post.

The trio’s post is titled “How Our Efforts to Bring Competition To Television Unknowingly Helped Create the Fox Disinformation Machine”.  

“At the time of our work in the 1990’s, we all greatly admired Rupert Murdoch and his vision and bold efforts,” they wrote. “We genuinely believed that the creation of a fourth competitive force in broadcast television was in the public interest.”

Yeah, for what little it may or may not be worth at this point. It's not going to faze Faux, Rupert Murdoch or his offspring Laughlin. They are all full blown, shameless fascists.

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

True statement, very few exceptions: "When your politics becomes who you are, you can't debate that."

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

About the strikes in Hollywood: The NYT reports: 

The union representing more than 150,000 television and movie actors announced Thursday that it would go on strike at midnight, joining screenwriters who walked out in May and creating Hollywood’s first industrywide shutdown in 63 years.

Pay is often at the center of work stoppages, and that is the case here. But the rise of streaming and the challenges created by the pandemic have stressed the studios, many of which are facing financial challenges, as well as actors and writers, who are seeking better pay and new protections in a rapidly changing workplace.

Both groups also want aggressive guardrails around the use of artificial intelligence to preserve jobs.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents major studios and streamers, has said it offered “historic pay and residual increases” as well as higher caps on pension and health contributions. They also say their offer includes audition protections, a “groundbreaking” proposal on artificial intelligence and other benefits that address the union’s concerns.

What is a person to make of the threat to jobs of artificial intelligence? The writers and actors see it as an existential threat. Their fear is that AI could displace most of their jobs and income. Is that a serious threat, or too abstract to be taken seriously? 

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

A WaPo opinion reminds us of what democracy and inconvenient truth are up against from America's radical right. This is about the House hearing with FBI director Chris Wray being slandered by hard core authoritarian Republicans and the American people lied to and insulted:

Republicans celebrate their successful deception of voters

“The American people fully understand,” Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) informed Wray at Wednesday’s hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, “… that you have personally worked to weaponize the FBI against conservatives.”

Right. Hageman, the election denier who ousted Liz Cheney in a primary, would have you believe that Wray — senior political appointee in the George W. Bush Justice Department, clerk to a noted conservative judge, contributor to the Federalist Society, Donald Trump-appointed head of the FBI — is part of a conspiracy to persecute conservatives. “The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background,” he replied.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), a close ally of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), told Wray that his FBI “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on topics such as the unconfirmed theory that covid-19 resulted from a lab leak in China.

“The idea that the FBI would somehow be involved in suppressing references to the lab-leak theory is somewhat absurd,” Wray answered, pointing a finger, “when you consider the fact that the FBI was the only — the only — agency in the entire intelligence community to reach the assessment that it was more likely than not that that was the explanation for the pandemic.”

And several Republicans on the panel floated the slander that the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection was an inside job perpetrated by the FBI.

“This notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous,” Wray responded, “and is a disservice to our brave, hard-working, dedicated men and women.”

Good for him. But here’s what’s especially insane, absurd and ludicrous: No matter how many refutations Wray and others provide, Republicans are persuading people to believe their lies — and they are proud of the deception. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) taunted: “People trusted the FBI more when J. Edgar Hoover was running the place.”

Reps. Wesley Hunt and Nathaniel Moran, both from Texas, also needled Wray about the FBI’s popularity. “You’re not aware of those numbers?” Moran jeered.

The Republicans are well aware of “those numbers” — because they are the ones who assassinated the reputation of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency. Support for the FBI isn’t low among all Americans; it’s at rock bottom among Republicans — only 17 percent of whom had a positive view of the FBI in the NBC poll, compared with 58 percent of Democrats. 

Now why would that have happened? Well, maybe it’s because they’ve been fed an endless diet of lies and conspiracy theories about the FBI by elected Republicans and their Murdoch mouthpieces. .... But the lies are also destroying the right’s support for the most basic functions of government that even conservatives long supported, such as law and order and national defense. Maybe that’s the goal.

Now, the arsonists are admiring the ashes.

I agree with that analysis. Authoritarian extremists have to relentlessly attack both pro-democracy institutions and inconvenient truth. Sadly, the tactic works. Dark free speech works. Period.

Political cartoons

 For a change: