Judge Brinkema expressed skepticism as DOJ lawyers sought to dismiss a case tied to the Trump administration's Anti-Weaponization Fund, saying the issues are "still alive and kicking."

US judge rejects bid to break up Google's ad business Share US judge rejects bid to break up Google's ad business on social media Alphabet's Google has escaped a breakup of its advertising technology business, marking the third time in recent years that United States antitrust enforcers have tried to force a Big Tech breakup and lost. US Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday declined to make Google sell AdX, where publishers pay Google a 20 percent fee to sell ads in auctions that happen instantly when users load websites. The judge accepted behavioural remedies. The reasoning behind today's decision was not immediately made public. Brinkema filed her opinion under seal for 14 days, leaving the details of how Google must change its ad business unknown for now.

After deflecting the US Department of Justice's attack on its illegal monopoly in online search, Google is facing another attempt to dismantle its internet empire in a trial focused on abusive tactics in digital advertising. The trial that opened Monday in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal court revolves around the harmful conduct that resulted in US district Judge Leonie Brinkema declaring parts of Google's digital advertising technology to be an illegal monopoly in April. The judge found that Google has been engaging in behavior that stifles competition to the detriment of online publishers that depend on the system for revenue. Google and the justice department will spend the next two weeks in court presenting evidence in a "remedy" trial that will culminate in Brinkema issuing a ruling on how to restore fair market conditions. If the justice department gets its way, Brinkema will order Google to sell parts of its ad technology - a proposal that the company's lawyers warned would "invite disruption and damage" to consumers and the internet's ecosystem.

Patent offices and courts around the world are being asked to tackle a similar question: can an artificial intelligence system qualify as an inventor for a patent? A test case making its way through several countries--from Saudi Arabia to Australia to Brazil--has spurred debate about advancements in artificial intelligence technology and questions about whether patent laws need to be revised to recognize machines as inventors. A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently ruled that, under current U.S. law, AI can't be listed as an inventor on a patent. The ruling was in line with what U.S., British, and EU patent officials have concluded. The push to recognize AI as an inventor comes from Ryan Abbott, a University of Surrey law professor, and Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri.

Add the United Kingdom to the list of countries that says an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine." The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application.

A U.S. judge has ruled that artificial intelligence can't get a patent for its creations, ruling that such a privilege is reserved for people. District court judge Leonie Brinkema backed a decision by the U.S. patent office to turn away applications made on behalf of a "creativity machine" named DABUS. Brinkema issued a ruling saying that "the clear answer is'no'" to the question of whether an AI machine qualifies as an inventor under patent law. "As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication that might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship," Brinkema said in the ruling. "But that time has not yet arrived and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law."

A US judge has ruled that artificial intelligence can't get a patent for its creations, ruling that such a privilege is reserved for people. District court judge Leonie Brinkema backed a decision by the US patent office to turn away applications made on behalf of a "creativity machine" named DABUS. Brinkema issued a ruling on Thursday saying that "the clear answer is'no'" to the question of whether an AI machine qualifies as an inventor under patent law. "As technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication that might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship," Brinkema said in the ruling. "But that time has not yet arrived and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law."