I'm more taken by the strength of "you can't patent AI ideas" than the IPR of artwork. I get that there are far more creatives than patenters, so I am making a somewhat unfortunate choice here, but to me thats much more significant.

The inverse proposition however may hold: AI derived proofs may PREVENT a patent because they didn't declare AI can't make prior art. I'd love to know if that does apply.

For those who may have missed prior threads on this, the denial of a petition for certiorari has no precedential effect (other than finalizing the lower court's decision in that particular case, in most instances).

The denial does not mean that SCOTUS "doesn't care": the area of the law is relatively new; SCOTUS almost certainly wants to let the various circuits experiment with different approaches; and SCOTUS may take a case once the law matures and a good circuit split has developed.

It could also be that this was not the right case ("bad facts make bad law").

Nothing to see here.

So is AI generated code not copy-rightable?