No, the USPTO will *NOT* grant a patent for a perpetual motion machine. It will be flat out rejected for lack of credibility due to involving perpetual motion (which is impossible)...
Re-read the post you replied to: "The USPTO will grant you a patent on your perpetual motion invention if you submit a working model."
If you can submit a working model, then I think you've got credibility (and have apparently discovered an error in known physics).
Also, by definition, a rejection for lacking utility would be inappropriate if the perpetual motion machine does work.
Eventually, your first several screens of apps will all be app stores to support the few useful apps you did install.
Copyright is better but far far too long
Trademarks are the way it should be done
You know that trademarks can last forever, right?
His model echoed political and social conservative talking points with considerable candor... It also, at times, provided incorrect or misleading statements.
No, registration is necessary to be able to sue for copytight enfringment. But registration applies retroactively, so if you want to sue someone for copying your unregistered work, you just have to register it (which can take up to a year), and then sue.
Though you are, of course, correct, the important part for this article is that you still need to get that registration, and the copyright office will not register works naming an AI as an artist or author.
The link is either wrong or tries to nitpick in "enforcable".
If I have the copyright, I have the copyright. No need to damn register it.
Might it be more easy to enforce if it is registered: no damn idea. Fact is: it is enforceable in either case.
Copyright is automatic, as soon as you fix an original creative work in a tangible medium, but registration is required as a prerequisite to suit. In other words, you can't enforce your copyright until you register it. You don't need to register it immediately (though you lose rights to statutory damages and attorneys' fees if you don't), but you need to register it at some point prior to filing suit for infringement.
See 17 USC 411(a): "Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title..."
Be sure to check those references. ChatGPT will hallucinate plausible looking ones that do not actually exist.
I asked it to remind me of various movies, songs, and books based on short descriptions. It absolutely nailed the movies and songs, got the better known books, but on the more obscure ones, it created books that don't exist, saying something like, "I believe you're thinking of '[book title]' by [author], ISBN [numbers], which includes [features I asked for]." But if you look up that book title, author, and ISBN, they don't exist. It's very confidently incorrect.
It's at the level of a very dumb admin assistant, but for admin assistant level things, it's not bad.
Bloomberg notes that Germany's Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care concluded that Nestle's drug "doesn't offer any advantage over peanut avoidance."
That's like saying that condoms don't offer any advantage over abstinence.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker