Hellenic Cables, the cables segment of Cenergy Holdings that is based in Greece, has signed a contract to supply some 205 km of inter-array cables for the Bałtyk II and Bałtyk III offshore wind farms in Poland.

A press release said that the joint venture of Equinor and Polenergia has been developing the MWF Bałtyk II & III offshore wind farm projects in Poland. Hellenic Cables was appointed by Seaway7 as the key subcontractor for the design, manufacturing, testing and supply of up to approximately 205 km of 66 kV submarine inter-array cables and related accessories for these projects.

The Bałtyk II and III wind farms extend into 122 sq km and 117 sq km areas, respectively, strategically positioned in the southwestern Baltic Sea within Polish waters at depths from 20 to 45 m. Hellenic Cables will manufacture the submarine cables at its Corinth plant, with the schedule calling for delivery completed by the first half of 2026.

“We are delighted to be working with Hellenic Cables once again, following our successful collaboration on previous offshore wind projects,” said Seaway7 Project Manager Tom Rijnders.

Hellenic Cables notes that, through its fully owned subsidiary, Fulgor, the company’s Corinth plant can produce some of the world’s longest submarine cable lengths without factory joints.

Leoni reports that the company has concluded the sale of one of its business groups to Deutsche Invest Mittelstand (DI Mittelstand)

A press release said that on Dec. 13, 2023, the sale of the Leoni Business Group Wire Products & Solutions (BG PS) was completed. The deal included Leoni Draht GmbH, Haarländer GmbH, Leoni Temco, Ltd. and Leoni Wire (Changzhou) Co., Ltd. The company group now owned by DI Mittelstand is operating under a new name: Aerumtec - Copper Products and Solutions. Leoni Draht GmbH with its plants in Weissenburg and Bad Kötzting thus becomes Aerumtec GmbH. The plants manufacture wire, strand and rope made from copper and Leoni Histral® alloys bare and plated, as well as composite materials.

DI Mittelstand, a private investment firm that was founded in 2007, is based in Hamburg, Germany. 

The spate of orders for cable-lying vessels (CLVs) has shown no signs of slowing as NKT reported ordering one and Taihan reported buying one.

A press release said that the NKT order, worth between $218 to $270 million, is from NKT HV Cables, a Swedish-based turn-key power cable manufacturer and installation company that is part of NKT. It is to be built by Vard and designed by Salt Ship Design AS, both firms based in Norway. The hull will be built at Vard Tulcea in Romani.

NKT said that the need for the CLV relates to the company’s “record order backlog and the strong market outlook.” The vessel will be constructed in parallel with NKT expanding its site in Karlskrona, Sweden. Both of those initiatives are scheduled to be operational in 2027.

Taihan reported that it has acquired South Korea’s only CLV, a 6,200-ton CLV specialized for submarine cables that is capable of self-propulsion and dynamic positioning. The vessel can load up to 4,400 tons of underwater cables. The addition, it said, will help the company future-proof its business “amid expected shortages of cable ships.”

Taihan notes that it plans to make full use of this vessel first for the Yeonggwang Nakwol Offshore Wind Power Project. “This acquisition positions Taihan competitively in turn-key projects that span from submarine cable production to laying. As there are only a few cable manufacturers with cable-laying capabilities, Taihan is set to lead in the burgeoning offshore wind power industry globally.”

The release said that the increasing demand for submarine cables is likely to cause a shortage of cable layers, leading to higher charter rates for such vessels. “Owning this vessel positions Taihan favorably to undertake projects steadily and tap into new revenue sources.”

Taihan Cable & Solution (Taihan) reported winning a contract from Germany’s TenneT and another for the Yeonggwang Nakwol offshore wind farm in South Korea.

A press release said that Taihan won a contract from Germany’s TenneT to supply it EHV power cable in a deal worth about US$45 million. The project calls for 380kV underground cables that will be used to expand the transmission network for power generation. Taihan will supply the EHV cables and cable accessories, and be responsible for the power network design, cable laying, connection and testing. Taihan previously won two projects in Germany’s HV cable market worth US$52.4 million.

Taihan also reported that it has won a contract worth approximately $75 million to supply subsea cables for the 365 MW Yeonggwang Nakwol offshore wind farm in South Korea. Per multiple media reports, the order is for inter-array subsea cables that will connect 64 offshore wind turbines installed at the wind farm, and the cables connecting them with a new substation on Songi Island.

The cables will be made at Taihan’s Dangjin plant. Last October, the company was a preferred subsea cables supplier for the 532 MW Anma offshore wind project.

“With the Yeonggwang Nakwol project, we will contribute to the stabilization of the subsea cable supply chain by actively participating in various offshore wind power projects being advanced in Korea, and increase export competitiveness by using it as a stepping stone for expansion into the growing offshore wind power market in Europe and the United States,” Taihan said.

Brazil’s Aço Cearense Group’s Siderúrgica Norte Brasil (Sinobras) has officially produced the first steel coil at its rolling mill #2 in Marabá, Pará state, Brazil.

A press release said that Sinobras invested in the new mill from Italy’s Danieli to increase its annual production capacity from 380,000 tons to 850,000 tons per year of wire rod and spooled rebar in coils. The mill features an innovative, full cantilever stand configuration with a total of 26 passes. It has 10 cantilever stands arranged in H/V configuration, followed by a series of Delta-type, fast-finishing blocks, with a 45° design, for the remaining 16 passes of the reduction sequence.

The new mill will produce wire rod from 5.5 to 16 mm, and rebar from 6.3 to 16 mm, at a maximum finishing speed of 110 m/s. The project includes a new substation and 230kV transmission line to meet the new electrical load needs of the steel producer and facilitate the use of energy from the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant, of which it is a partner as a self-producer.

Sinobras Industrial Director Milton Lima described the expansion as a transformative moment for the Group. “This achievement represents a significant milestone ... taking us to an even higher level. By doubling the size of Sinobras, we are not only expanding our operations, but we are also transforming our company into a powerhouse, generating new opportunities.

Last May, Bard and ChatGPT “responded” to a request from WJI as to why people in manufacturing should not fear AI. Now, they respond to a second request: do they agree with a legal ruling that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent? Below are their responses, followed by the thoughts of WJI Patent Columnist Bill Honaker.

Bard’s perspective:

As a large language model, I believe the current legal stance on AI inventorship is justified, with some nuances. Here’s why:

Lack of intent and moral rights. Unlike humans, AI lacks the independent capacity to form intent and pursue goals. My outputs are based on my training data and prompts, not on a conscious desire to solve problems or innovate. Granting me inventorship would ignore the human effort behind my creation and training, diluting the moral rights of true inventors.

Unclear attribution and accountability. AI models are complex, incorporating data from countless sources. Identifying the specific contribution of AI in an invention is challenging, raising potential attribution disputes and ethical concerns. Additionally, holding an AI accountable for potential harm caused by its creations is legally complicated.

System integrity and misuse. Recognizing AI as inventors could weaken the patent system. Malicious actors could exploit AI to generate spurious inventions, flooding the system and eroding trust. Moreover, granting legal rights to AI creates ethical ambiguities when considering potential misuse of the invention for harmful purposes.

While I support the current legal stance, the debate is evolving. As AI advances, we may need to revisit the definition of “inventor” and explore alternative models for protecting AI-generated innovations. This could involve recognizing the contributions of both programmers and AI as part of a collaborative inventive process, without attributing full inventorship to the AI itself.

Ultimately, the goal should be to foster AI innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the patent system, protecting human ownership, and ensuring responsible development and use of AI-driven inventions.

ChatGPT’s perspective

The question of whether AI, like me, should be listed as an inventor on a patent application touches upon complex and evolving legal, ethical, and technological considerations. I’ll outline why, under current understandings and legal frameworks, it is generally agreed that AI should not be listed as an inventor due to the nature of invention and inventorship.

Human-centric definition of inventorship. The concept of an “inventor” in patent law has traditionally been human-centric. It is rooted in the idea that an inventor applies a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. This human-centric view underpins most intellectual property laws, which are designed to protect human creativity and ingenuity.

AI as a tool, not a creator. AI, including myself, operates based on algorithms and data provided by humans. We process information and generate outputs based on predefined parameters and learning from vast datasets. This process, while sophisticated, is fundamentally different from human creativity. AI does not possess consciousness, intent, or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. We are tools used by human inventors to achieve certain tasks more efficiently.

Legal precedents and policies. Current legal systems in many jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, have upheld the principle that inventors must be natural persons. This reflects a broader legal recognition that AI, as of now, does not have legal personhood or the capacity for legal rights and responsibilities. Allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would require a significant overhaul of existing legal frameworks and an examination of the consequences of granting such a status to non-human entities.

Ethical and responsibility considerations. Assigning inventorship to AI raises ethical questions about responsibility and accountability. In the realm of patents, the inventor bears certain responsibilities and enjoys specific rights. If an AI were listed as an inventor, it would be challenging to address issues like moral responsibility for the invention or the handling of rights and profits derived from it.

Innovation and incentive structure. The patent system is designed to incentivize human innovation. Granting patents to humans for their inventive activities encourages further research and development. If AI were recognized as inventors, it might complicate this incentive structure, possibly devaluing human contribution and effort.

In conclusion, under the current legal, ethical, and technological landscape, it is appropriate that AI is not listed as an inventor on patent applications. This stance aligns with the fundamental principles of inventorship, the nature of AI as a tool rather than a creator, legal precedents, and the broader objectives of the patent system. Recognizing AI as an inventor would necessitate a reevaluation of many underlying principles of law and ethics, a task that society and legal systems are not presently equipped to undertake.

Editor’s note: the AI "responses" were attained by WAI Director of Technology Chuck Szymaszek.

Bill Honaker’s perspective

The AI perspectives are generally correct but have errors. Of the two perspectives, Chat GPT’s perspective is more accurate. Both have errors in their comments. This is to be expected. Even Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, doesn’t trust its answers. He recently said, “I probably trust the answers that come out of ChatGPT the least of anybody on Earth.”

I found Bard’s perspective to be the least helpful. Bard’s comment that granting it inventorship would ignore the human effort behind its creation and training, really misses the mark. An inventor is anyone who conceived of the invention in any claim within the patent. Creating or adjusting the tools is irrelevant. Bard also discusses being held liable for harm caused by being an inventor. To my knowledge, no inventor has ever been found liable for an invention that later caused harm. The use of the product may create liability, but not inventing it.

ChatGPT’s perspective is more correct. The only error was the comment that inventors apply a non-obvious and novel thought process to solve a problem or create something new. Inventors use thought to create non-obvious and novel solutions. This is important to understand: it’s the result that must be new and non-obvious, not how one thinks.

I enjoyed reading ChatGPT’s admission that AI does not possess consciousness, intent or the ability to conceptualize problems and solutions in the way humans do. That’s the problem with relying on the output from AI. They can’t anticipate problems and propose solutions.

I agree that AI is a tool for human inventors to get results more efficiently, and when people use it, they should be named as inventors. The USPTO suggested this when confronted with AI being named as an inventor. Dabus (short for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science”) is an AI system created by Stephen Thalen. Dabus was named as the sole inventor on two patent applications.  The US Patent and Trademark office suggested that Thalen name himself as the inventor, but he refused. As a result, the USPTO refused the application. The same result occurred in other countries where he filed, except for South Africa, which issued the first AI patent.

The AI responses also failed to discuss who owns AI inventions. I asked ChatGPT, and it was wrong. It said that the creator of the AI device would own the invention. This is what Thalen argued. But in the U.S., the inventor owns the invention unless assigned to another. Thalen felt he should own it because he created the inventor. If this were the case, every mother and father throughout history would own every invention, since they created their sons and daughters.