{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Thinking Makes It So","title":"October 28: Diamond v. Diehr and the rubber press","html":"<iframe width=\"100%\" height=\"180\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" seamless src=\"https://share.transistor.fm/e/ffd33d73\"></iframe>","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":535,"description":"In 1981 the Supreme Court held, five to four, that a rubber-curing process run by a computer could be patented. Jon and Catie on Diamond v. Diehr, the two cases before it that said no, how Alice read it in 2014, and what it means for anyone patenting artificial intelligence today.\r\n\r\nSources:\r\nDiamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/175/\r\nParker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/\r\nGottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/63/\r\nAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/208/\r\nUS Patent 4,344,142: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4344142A/en\r\n\r\nRead the article: https://burbagelaw.com/podcast.html\r\n\r\nNarrated with the assistance of AI. Nothing in this podcast is legal advice.","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/Tj0jgdq-8N-yIwTpxVtvfZh3bDBXinEYJfSSBRBkgKE/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS84Yjcy/NDVkYzg0MTViMjEw/ZmYwMWEzMjAxYmFk/MjcwZS5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}