NKT announced that it has won an order worth some €2.2 billion for two power cable projects and that it plans to invest in additional high-voltage capacity in Germany.

A press release said that NKT has been awarded two onshore power cable projects by Amprion, a German transmission system operator (TSO). The order calls for NKT to provide high-voltage AC and DC onshore power cable systems for the ongoing expansion of the German power grid. With the award of these two specific turnkey projects, NKT will design, manufacture and install the high-voltage power cable systems with voltage levels of 110 kV, 380 kV AC and 525 kV DC. With a combined value of approximately €1.2bn, NKT continues the positive development from 2023 and increases the high-voltage order backlog to approximately €12 billion.

The projects include Korridor-B V48, an onshore corridor project with a route length of approximately 430 km of 525 kV HVDC power cables; and Rheinquerung, which will require approximately 20 km of 380 kV AC and 50 km of 110 kV AC power cables for extension of the onshore power grid in Germany. The two projects, expected to be commissioned from 2029 to 2031, were described as “a key element in the acceleration of the Energiewende, Germany’s long-term strategy for the transition to renewable energy by 2045.”

“Contracts like the one with NKT are fundamental to driving forward the energy transition,” said Amprion CTO Dr. Hendrik Neumann. “Only if we can procure the necessary resources on the market in time, we stay on schedule and on course for project success. Korridor B in particular plays an important role in achieving our climate targets.”

Based on demand, NKT has decided to invest approximately €100 million for additional capacity at its existing factory in Cologne. The added capacity is planned to be gradually operational from 2027 and is expected to support NKT’s medium-term financial ambition of delivering RoCE above 20%.

The majority of the power cables for the two projects will be manufactured in Cologne, which is operating on renewable electricity and is located close to the installation sites in Germany. The local footprint will significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the power cable systems, help create and maintain highly qualified German jobs supporting the transition to renewable energy in general and Germany’s leading position within this transition.

The Supervisory Board of LEONI announced changes to its executive board to further continuity of leadership. The company will extend the contract of CEO Klaus Rinnerberger through the end of 2027. He was lauded for helping LEONI return to operational success again following the financial restructuring in summer 2023. The Supervisory Board also extends the Executive Board mandate of Ingo Spengler as COO. His contract will now also run until the end of 2027. Dr. Harald Nippel will continue his role as a member of the Executive Board and CFO until April 2026. He will oversee and be responsible for the preparation of the financial results for fiscal 2025. The Supervisory Board reduced the Executive Board from four to three members as part of the company streamlining. Accordingly, the contract with Dr. Ursula Biernert as CHRO and labor director will not be extended by mutual agreement. She will be leaving the company over the summer to take on new professional challenges. The responsibilities previously summarized in the CHRO area will be transferred to the remaining members of the Executive Board. In the future, Rinnerberger will be responsible for HR, while the other two corporate functions, namely RCS (Risk, Compliance & Sustainability) and Real Estate, will report to CFO Dr. Harald Nippel. Based in Nuremberg, Germany, Leoni AG, is a global provider of energy and data management solutions in the automotive sector with branches throughout the world.

Amjad Abu-Ali has joined LLFlex as product manager for its wire and cable product portfolio, supporting the management, innovation and development of shielding and armoring tapes. He has more than 25 years of industry experience in the wire & cable industry, Amjad brings considerable experience and expertise to LLFlex. Based in Louisville, Kentucky, LLFlex is a leader in packaging materials and industrial laminate solutions for sectors that include wire and cable with manufacturing operations in Kentucky and North Carolina. 

WAGO has named Sy Stevens as the company’s new vice president of marketing and digitalization for the Americas. He will be leading and implementing strategic marketing initiatives across North and South America. He has a wealth of experience, having held marketing management positions at companies such as Rockwell Automation and Case IH. With operations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and South America, WAGO, based in Germantown, Wisconsin, supplies spring pressure connection technology. 

Stherrim “Sterrin” Raymond has joined Wire & Cable Technology International (WCTI) as an editorial and production specialist. She will handle WCTI, Wire Forming Technology International and Fastener Technology International. She takes over for Jim Masar, who has retired from those magazines but will continue to edit WCTI’s Overview and FTI’s Fastener News Report newsletters. She holds a degree from the University of Akron. Based in Akron, Ohio, Initial Publications produces industry trade publications.

It’s never too early to make time to hit a bucket or two of golf balls to get in the mindset for WAI Chapter golf tournaments. As of this time, only the New England Chapter has a firm date (Sept. 9), but this section will have more details in future issues.

The collective chapter golf tournaments bring together professionals from the wire and cable industry for a day of camaraderie and sportsmanship. Beyond the obvious attraction of golfing, the events serve as an excellent platform to build new connections, exchange knowledge, and strengthen existing relationships within the industry.

Beyond that, the tournaments serve another purpose, and it’s an important one: they support the chapters that have college scholarship programs, so get out there and hit a few buckets. Until then, below are some photos from 2023.

John Markowski has returned to the Wire Association International in the newly created position of project manager of education that will play a crucial role in meeting the organization’s commitment to advancing industry knowledge and professional development.

“We’re thrilled to have John back with us,” said WAI Executive Director Steve Fetteroll, who noted that Markowski, the former manager of membership and social media, has a distinguished track record. He now will oversee the development of a robust training and development program geared towards empowering members with essential skills and knowledge.

“I’m on the lookout for experts to help us craft engaging and informative training modules,” Markowski said. “If you’re knowledgeable about wire and cable manufacturing, machinery operation, quality control, or any other relevant area, and are willing to share your knowledge with the industry, I want to hear from you!”

Markowski will help implement a comprehensive Learning Management System (LMS), a strategic initiative to revolutionize how educational content is delivered within the wire and cable manufacturing industry. He will focus on enhancing WAI’s educational offerings so they provide learning programs—mostly video—that directly apply to the shop floor. They will present the “how’s” and “why’s” of production processes.

Markowski will be involved in other ongoing initiatives, including the upcoming Fundamentals of Wire Manufacturing Course at Wire Expo 2024. An Eagle Scout, he joined WAI as an intern in 2018 while attending Albertus Magnus College. He soon became a marketing associate, then two years later became manager of membership and social media. He left WAI in July 2023 and recently returned.

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.